Monday, March 31, 2014

UNELECTABLE: Nandan INVALID as a candidate for any party and any Indian election

IF a candidate does not believe in the supremacy of Parliamentary form of decision making with respect to laws, schemes and policies for what reason should the voting people get fooled by him/ her? 

Did the UIDAI chief run away from answering questions of the standing committee of parliament and probably also at the National Advisory Council? 

He refused to answer audience questions at many public talks? 

Why will any voter waste her /his vote on someone who has consistently influenced policy and schemes through being close to the UPA chiefs?

The same trend was earlier seen in his approach creating political buy in with CM of Karnataka during 1999-2004 for the Bangalore Agenda Task force (BATF)?

He has also disrespected many Supreme  Court orders by not withdrawing the mandatory backing of UID numbers

The voter does not need any identity to be given by UIDAI? but yet he was misled that UID was an ID card while it is only an id number

This resulted in enrolments from the same people that the former UIDAI Chairman had asked to TATTOO the UID number they got so that it was not lost or forgotten?

something only = to a prisoner number

but the pressure of the same voters led to the delinking of UID and LPG and the Supreme court delinked UID from the rest of us

TODAY is No fools DAY 


Contrary Views on biometric aadhaar by Gopal Krishna, Nandan Nilekani

Prabhat Khabar, a widely circulated newspaper of Bihar and Jharkhand carried views of Gopal Krishna and Nandan Nilekani on biometric aadhaar. The same is available at

Since July 2009, media in general has been given more space to Nilekani and pro-aadhaar views.

Congress, BJP took illegal foreign donations, 1967 elections foreign funded: Delhi High Court

On March 28, 2014, Delhi High Court delivered a judgement exposing the corrupt practices of both the ruling Congress party and the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). 
 The London-listed mining group Vedanta Resources Plc gave foreign donations in cash between 2004 and 2012. This judgment 10 days before the voting for the 16th Lok Sabha election commences has revealed their true colours. Vedanta Resources plc is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1985 and registered in England and Wale.
Sterlite Industries India and Sesa Goa, two companies then registered in India but whose controlling shareholder was Vedanta, donated 87.9 million rupees in total to Congress between 2004 and 2012.
Sesa Goa donated 14.2 million rupees to the BJP over the same period. This data was presented by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in the court through Prashant Bhushan, a noted public interest lawyer and a prominent leader of Aam Aadmi Party. The judgement was announced on a petition filed in public interest by E A S Sarma, Former Secy, Govt of India, and ADR in Delhi High Court in January 2013.
Sterlite Industries India also donated 70 million rupees to the BJP, according to the company's annual 2009-10 report. Vedanta, which is the controlling shareholder, merged the two companies in 2013.
"The acts of the respondents ... clearly fall foul of the ban imposed under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 as the donations accepted by the political parties from Sterlite and Sesa accrue from "Foreign Sources"," Judge Pradeep Nandrajog and Judge Jayant Nath wrote in their 33 page long judgment.
In para 73 of the judgement “…We have no hesitation in arriving at the view that prima-facie the acts of the respondents inter-se, as highlighted in the present petition, clearly fall foul of the ban imposed under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 as the donations accepted by the political parties from Sterlite and Sesa accrue from Foreign Sources within the meaning of law.”
The court has issued two directions in para 74 of the judgement:
·         The first direction would concern the donations made by State Trading Corporation of India and Metals and Minerals Corporation of India to INC in respect of the donations made to National Students Union of India (NSUI). Both MHA and ECI have been directed to investigate the matter to find out whether the same is a “stray incident and possibly a mistake or otherwise.”
·         The second direction would concern the donations made to political parties by not only Sterlite and Sesa but other similarly situated companies/corporations. Both MHA and ECI have been asked to “relook and reappraise” the receipts of the political parties and identify foreign contributions received by foreign sources.
 ADR had submitted that there is a blatant violation of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "FCRA") by political parties which include the Respondent
No.3 and the Respondent No.4. It is asserted that Section 29(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 prohibits political parties from taking donations from Government Companies as also from a foreign source. It asserted that FCRA prohibits acceptance of foreign contributions by political parties as per the mandate of Section 4(1) (e) thereof. [Union of India (Respondent 1) and Election Commission of India (Respondent 2), Indian National Congress (Respondent 3) and BJP (Respondent 4)]

The Court recalled its decision in the matter of P.V Narsimha Rao v. Central Bureau of Investigation wherein it observed, "“What is the best way to win political foes? Persuasion? Understanding? Love? Compassion? Dale Carnegie's sermons? ...secret of success lies, at least with regard to some, in mastering the art of transferring one's own bulging wallets into the eager pockets of others.” 

The March 28, 2014 judgment refers to V.K.R.V.Rao and Dharm Narain's book Foreign Aid and India‟s Economic Development, wherein it has been pertinently observed on page 72: “India’s policy of non alignment with power blocs enabled it to receive foreign contributions from both the blocs. Eventually, with too much money coming in, with no self discipline, regulation, transparency or public accountability, and with some groups building empires in the name of contribution.”

It also refers to debates on the floor of the two Houses of Parliament where is reference to an enquiry conducted by the Intelligence Bureau, "it was revealed that the Political Parties in India were funded by Foreign Powers for the elections held in the year 1967." 

The judgement observes, "Deep concern was unanimously expressed by all Members cutting across party lines that in the recent past the Foreign Powers were alarmingly successful in wielding their satanic influence to corrupt public life and create a class of citizens having "extra -territorial loyalty". It was gathered from experience, domestic as well as international, that such covert operations were executed through the aid of seemingly innocuous organisations like Research Foundations, Religious and Cultural Societies, Voluntary Associations and Multi-National Corporations. It had dawned that India had denigrated into a playground for the world powers; who were coining ingenious means to latently push across huge sums of money through puppet organisations and destabilize the country. The Members of the House unanimously supported the Aim and Object(s) of the legislation and the mischief of pervasive foreign influence on our polity that it sought to suppress."

Thursday, March 27, 2014


                       You must have read the government appeal at the railway stations and other government offices to use Hindi; but are you aware that in this so called biggest democracy of the world, even after sixty-six years of independence, one cannot use Hindi or any other Indian language in the Supreme Court of India? 
Moreover it is not due to the arbitrary action of any government official, it is in accordance with the provision of the Indian Constitution. Sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of article 348 of the Indian Constitution states, “all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in the English language.” 
Although clause (2) of the same article does specify that the Governor of a State may, with the previous consent of the President, authorise the use of the Hindi language or the official language of the State in the proceedings in the High Court of that State. This clause further states, “Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to any judgment, decree or order passed or made by such High Court". 
So even this clause provides for only limited use of any Indian language in the High Courts and doesn’t make the status of any Indian language equivalent to English language. But even the limited use of any Indian language under this clause has been provided in only four High Courts of India after sixty-six years of independence. 
The use of Hindi was authorised in the High Court of Rajasthan on February 14, 1950. After that Hindi was authorised in the High Courts of UP, MP and Bihar in the years  1970, 1971 and 1972 respectively. Therefore, no Indian language can be used in any of the remaining seventeen High Courts and the Supreme court of India. 
In the year 2002 the government (Governor) of Chhattisgarh asked for the consent of the Central government (President ) to authorise the use of Hindi in its High Court. Similarly in the years 2010 and 2012 the governments of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat asked for the consent of the President  to authorise the use of Tamil and Gujarati in their High Courts. But the Central government declined the consent in all these three cases. This is not only the undemocratic and anti-people attitude of the government, it is also an attack on the federal structure of the Constitution. 
I don't know which other state governments asked for such consent prior to the year 2002. But there is no such provision in the Constitution that the President or any other authority can authorise the use of one or more Indian languages in the Supreme Court. So the obvious way to authorise the use of one or more  Indian languages in the Supreme Court is to amend article 348 of the Indian Constitution. After the amendment the clause (1) of article 348 of the Indian Constitution should state, “all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in at least any one Indian language in addition to the English language.” 
Under this amended provision one should be able to use at least Tamil  besides English in the Madras High Court, at least Kannada besides English in the Karnataka High Court, at least Hindi besides English in the High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh and similarly at least the official language of that state besides English in the other High Courts of India  and at least Hindi besides English in the Supreme Court of India. A noteworthy thing here is that in the Parliament the MPs are allowed to speak in all the 22 Indian languages  in the eighth schedule of the Indian Constitution besides in English. 
The audience has the option to hear the speech either in the original Indian language or its instant translation either in Hindi or in English. It is desirable that people are allowed to seek justice in more than one Indian language in every High Court and the Supreme Court  under this provision of translation but prohibiting the use of even any one Indian language in these courts is the clear example of the motive of the ruling elites to exploit the masses.
                   It is the right of every citizen  to speak on his or her own regarding his or her case in the court irrespective of whether he or she has hired any lawyer or not. But according to the existing provision of article 348 of the Constitution  ninety-seven percent (97%)  of the Indians,  incapable of speaking in English, are being deprived of this right in the Supreme Court and the seventeen  High Courts of India. 
Any one of these 97% Indians will be forced to hire an English knowing lawyer if he or she files any case in these courts or if somebody files any case against him or her in these courts, whereas it is the right of every individual to fight his or her case without hiring any lawyer. Even if somebody hires any lawyer he or she is not able to understand whether the lawyer is presenting the important points about his or her case or not.
                   If the people residing in Rajasthan, UP, MP and Bihar have the right to use Indian language in their High Courts, why shouldn’t the people residing in other states have the same right? 
Is it not a discrimination against them? Is it not a violation of the fundamental rights of “Equality before law” under article 14 and “Prohibition of discrimination on the ground of place of birth” under article 15 of the Constitution? And on this basis hasn’t the Central government insulted the Constitution and acted against the interest of the people of the country by rejecting the demands of the government of Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat? 
To say that the use of Indian language will be allowed only in the High Courts of Hindi speaking states (Rajasthan, UP, MP and Bihar) is clearly an unjust and discriminatory treatment to the non-Hindi belt people; but even if this logic is to be accepted in any manner then why is Hindi not authorised to be used in the High Courts of Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand?
                    Indian languages are authorised to be used in the lower courts and district courts. So when a case comes as an appeal after the judgment in the district court, there is a wastage of time and money in translating all the documents into English. The situation is analogous when a case is filed as an appeal into the Supreme Court after any judgment in the High Courts of Rajasthan, UP, MP and Bihar. 
Even if one Indian language is authorised to be used in each High Court and Supreme Court in addition to English, then the problem of translation into English will almost disappear upto the High Court level in the entire country and even at the Supreme Court level the documents of only those cases will need to be translated which will come there as an appeal from the non Hindi region High Courts which were originally heard in the Indian languages. 
Apart from saving the time and money in translation the proposed legislative change will also increase the possibility of the same lawyer working at the lower court and district court level to work as the lawyer at the High Court and the Supreme Court level, which will reduce the cost of litigation.
                   At present there is complete reservation for the 3% English knowing elites in the opportunities for doing legal practice and becoming Judges in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. It is against the objective of the Constitution to secure to all its citizens the “equality of opportunity”  as stated in the Preamble of the constitution and violates the fundamental right of “equality of opportunity in matters of public employment” under article 16 of the Constitution.
                    Besides violating the various constitutional provisions stated earlier, article 348 in its present form violates numerous other provisions of the Indian Constitution. Some of these additional constitutional violations  are stated below:
·       According to its Preamble the Constitution of India is supposed to constitute India into a “Socialist Democratic Republic” and it ought to secure to all its citizens  'justice', ‘Equality of status and of opportunity’ and  to promote among them all ‘Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and unity and integrity of the Nation.'
·        Article 38  ---  State shall promote the welfare of the people. Article 39  ---  The state shall secure that the citizens have the right to an adequate means of livelihood. Article 39 A  --- The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity and that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic and other disabilities.
·       Article 51 A – “It shall be the fundamental duty of every citizen of India to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom and to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood among all the people of India transcending linguistic and regional or sectional diversities.” [It is a well known fact that  ‘Swaraj’ or ‘Self Rule’ was the guiding principle of our freedom struggle and the use of Hindi and other public languages and opposition to the imposition of English on the masses of India was Gandhijee’s principle and popularisation of the National language was one of the core issues of his constructive programmes. Clearly our ruling class is violating its constitutional fundamental duty by protecting article 348 in its present form.]
·       Article 343  --- The official language of the union shall be Hindi.  Article 351  --- It shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language, to develop it and to secure its enrichment.
                      Amending article 348 is an issue  which cannot be postponed on the basis of the scarcity of resources. As described earlier the proposed amended form will save lot of resources because of saving of time and money in translation and reduced cost of litigation in hiring the lawyers. 
The existence and continuation of article 348 in its present form is a clear proof of the tendency of our ruling class to exploit the masses intentionally. It renders our independence ineffective and inoperative. It is a continuation of the exploitative colonial provision. Does independence mean merely the replacement of the ‘Union Jack’ by ‘Tricolour Flag'? 
India is supposed to be the biggest democracy of the world but can there be democracy in a country where people don’t have access to justice in their own language? All the developed countries of the world make it amply clear that a country makes tremendous progress by working in the public language. 
There cannot be a proper participation of the talents of the general citizens of a country in its developmental process by working in a foreign language. It can be verified that the countries holding topmost positions in the world on the basis of  per capita income work in their public languages and the countries of the world ranking at the bottom most positions in per capita income can be seen to be  working in foreign languages. 
Only those underdeveloped countries of the world work in some foreign language where the dishonest elite class makes use of the foreign language as the weapon for exploitation of the masses and wants to secure complete reservation for itself in the opportunities for development through it.
                    We [Nyay Evam Vikas Abhiyan] have been requesting the various responsible persons in the government of India and  political parties since March 2012 to amend article 348 of the Constitution. When we expressed our intention to sit on “Satyagraha” on this issue outside the house of 'Smt Sonia Gandhi', President, INC and Chairperson, UPA on September 11, 2012 then we were requested to wait for a week. 
After that we tried to sit on Satyagrah on September 19 outside the house of 'Smt Sonia Gandhi'. But police kept us arrested in the Tughlak Road Police Station. At about 8 PM we agreed to discontinue our Satyagrah for six days with the assurance that the matter would be looked into within six days. 
On September 21 we were informed that Soniajee had referred our letter to Sri Oscar Fernandes, General secretary, Congress Party to give his report on that  issue. Oscarjee called us for meeting on five different dates from September 23 to October 30. He wrote a letter to Sri Salman Khurshid, the then law Minister, on this issue and sent his report to Smt Sonia Gandhi by his write up dated October 29, 2012. We were quite satisfied with his letter and report. 
On October 30, 2012, Oscarjee had expressed the hope that a constitution amendment bill would be introduced in the winter session of the Parliament. But when no such announcement was made, we wrote to Soniajee on November 14 and November 28. We sat on Satyagrah continuously since December 4, 2012 (up to July 16, 2013) outside the house of Smt Sonia Gandhi and the head office of the Congress Party. But most of the time police kept us  arrested in the Tughlak Road Police Station.
I didn’t go out anywhere like  house, post office, bank, market etc. since December 4, 2012 (tll July 24, 2013).  At about 5:30 pm on July 16, 2013 the SHO of the Tughlak Road Police Station arrested me and I was sent to the Tihar Jail on July 17, 2013 on false and fabricated charges. On July 24, 2013 I was released from the Tihar Jail on the condition that I shall not sit on Satyagrah outside 24, Akbar Road.    
                      We request the seekers of justice to exert pressure on the government of India for introducing the Constitution Amendment Bill in the Parliament. Anybody can contact me on the phone no. 09818216384.

लाल मुनी चौबे बक्सर संसदीय सीट से निर्दलीय उम्मीदवार

बिहार से चार बार सांसद रह चुके लाल मुनी चौबे भारतीय जनता पार्टी (भाजपा) छोड़कर बक्सर संसदीय सीट से निर्दलीय उम्मीदवार के तौर पर लड़ रहे  है। चौबे ने कहा कि मैंने भाजपा से त्यागपत्र दे दिया है।  

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Aadhaar & NPR: a corrupt surveillance tool, rebuttal of Nilekani’s blog

Aadhaar & NPR: a corrupt surveillance tool

Rebuttal of Nilekani’s blog of March 24, 2014

Reacting to the order of the Supreme Court against biometric aadhaar number and National Population Register (NPR), Nandan Nilekani, former unelected head of aadhaar related projects and committees attempted to mislead Indian voters in general and Bangalore South voters in particular in a write-up dated March 24, 2014.

Nilekani, a Congress candidate wrongly claimed, “the Supreme Court has upheld the UIDAI’s view. We have always stated that the data collected from residents would remain private, and not be shared with other agencies.”

The documents accessed through RTI reply dated October 25, 2013 reveal that this is an impudent misrepresentation of facts. In the contract agreement between the President of India for UIDAI, as purchaser and L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company, and Accenture Services Pvt Ltd accessed through RTI at clause 15.1 it is stated, "By virtue of this Contract, M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd/Team of M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd may have access to personal information of the Purchaser and/or a third party or any resident of India, any other person covered within the ambit of any legislation as may be applicable."  The purchaser is President of India through UIDAI. The clause 15.3 of the agreements reads, "The Data shall be retained by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd not more than a period of 7 years as per Retention Policy of Government of India or any other policy that UIDAI may adopt in future." This clearly implies that all the biometric data of Indians which has been collected so far is now available to US Government and French Government because of Patriot Act and French government’s stake in the company in question.Copies of the contract agreement are available with Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL).

This Congress candidate states, “In its very first strategy document and in subsequent conversations, the UIDAI had clarified that while other government agencies have the option to make the number mandatory, the UIDAI itself will not make the Aadhaar number mandatory. Over the past year, some government agencies made the Aadhaar number mandatory for specific services and benefits.”

Sophistry manifests itself in myriad ways. The fact is all these government agencies made biometric aadhaar number mandatory based on the recommendations of Committees headed by Nilekani.

This was/is an act of breach of trust and betrayal by Nilekani. UIDAI itself was/is maintaining that Aadhaar is 'voluntary' while its chairman, the Congressman made sure that it was made mandatory to avail a number of services or benefits from the government.

The Strategy Overview document of the UIDAI says that "enrolment will not be mandated" adding, "This will not, however, preclude governments or registrars from mandating enrolment" but the stark fact is Nilekani himself headed several committees whose recommendations made Aadhaar mandatory."

Given below is the list of Committees and groups that decided to make aadhaar mandatory with which Nilekani was associated: -

1) Nilekani headed Technology Advisory Group on Unique Projects (TAGUP) that proposes "private company with public purpose" and with "profit making as the motive but not profit maximising" called National Information Utilities (NIUs). GST Network is a NIU which is unfolding to take over the sovereign function of tax collection from the government.  Nilekani was chairman, Empowered Group, IT Infrastructure for Goods and Services Tax (GST)
2) Nilekani headed Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which is functioning without legislative approval either at the centre or in the states and has signed contracts with companies that work with foreign Intelligence agencies
3) Nilekani headed Committee on Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) technology for use on National Highways that proposes Radio Frequency Identification (RFID).
4) Nilekani headed Inter-ministerial task force to streamline the subsidy distribution mechanism
5) Nilekani headed Government of India's IT Task Force for Power Sector
6) He was member of National Knowledge Commission
7) He was member of Review Committee of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban RenewalMission
8) He was member of National Advisory Group on e-Governance
9) He was member of Subcommittee of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) that dealt with issues related to insider trading
10) He was member of Reserve Bank of India's Advisory Group on corporate governance
11) He was member of Prime Minister's National Council on Skill Development
12) He was member of Prime Minister headed National Committee on Direct Cash Transfers
13) He was an invitee to the Cabinet Committee on UID related matters
14) He was an invitee to Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding Issue of Resident Identity Cards under NPR Scheme
15) He is a member of the board of governors of the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)
16) He is the president of NCAER
This list is not exhaustive. Nilekani has many more identities as a shareholder and as a former head of a corporation. Notably, Nilekani met the then deputy chief minister of Bihar, Sushil Kumar Modi at Bihar Bhawan in New Delhi in August 2011 to ensure a centralized IT infrastructure for GST across the states through GST Network to take away the sovereign function of tax collection from the state.

In his statement dated March 24, 2014, the Congressman claimed, “The argument was that making Aadhaar mandatory enables agencies to weed out fakes and duplicates in their systems, thus reducing corruption.” This was the argument of the Government in which he was a cabinet minister ranked official and he was himself recommending it. Nilekani is indulging in verbal gymnastics and is trying to hide behind a veil of language.  
This Congressman will have us believe that “The fundamental goals of the Aadhaar number are inclusion and anti-corruption. The goals of reducing corruption should not be met at the expense of valid beneficiaries being refused their benefits.”
The fact is the fundamental goal of biometric Aadhaar number is tracking, profiling and targeting of minorities of all shades using the most sensitive personal biometric information.   
Nilekani claims: “The power of Aadhaar as an anti-corruption tool stems from its uniqueness. A unique number linked to an individual’s biometrics means that no one else can pretend to be the person receiving benefits, and therefore cannot defraud him or her.” 
The fact is that he has himself revealed in USA that biometric Aadhaar is a tool for surveillance. Not surprisingly, lower court of Goa and Central Bureau of Investigation sensed it.
Delivering a lecture at Center for Global Development, Washington on April 22, 2013 Nilekani admitted, “Now, biometrics has a big history in the world. Biometrics was first used in India in the 1870s when the British used it for land titling, and they also used people's fingerprints to record the registration of documents. Historically, and up until a few years ago, the use of biometrics was essentially in forensics. It was about using biometrics for crime investigation and crime protection. You had all these Perry Mason novels where you took the fingerprint off the glass and identified the killer and all that. So, fundamentally, biometrics was used for forensic purposes. But, after 9/11, biometrics has increasingly been used for the purpose of surveillance, or security, or for immigration control.”
Has Nilekani or Congress party ever informed fellow congressmen or compatriots that its biometric Aadhaar is going to be used for surveillance and security etc.    
Is Congress Party ignorant of the fact that on August 16, 1908, a public meeting was protest under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi certificates based on biometric data like fingerprints were burnt.? On August 22, 1906 the Transvaal Government had published a new ordinance that Indians, Arabs and Turks aged eight years or above in held on the grounds of Hamidia Mosque in Johannesburg and in that landmark Transvaal Republic (later province) of South Africa must register their names with the Registrar of Asiatics. The registration involved finger and thumb impressions. Any Indian failing to comply would be fined with £ 100 or imprisoned for three months and even deported.
Given the fact that Congress party has betrayed the freedom struggle and the cause espoused by Gandhi, opposition parties should give a call for the burning of biometric Aadhaar paper and destruction of its database lying with the Planning Commission’s UIDAI and Home Ministry’s Registrar General of India for National Population Register (NPR).  
Nilekani states, “We have often heard about the truly deserving being defrauded of benefits such as pensions, or food rations when these were stolen or diverted by someone else pretending to be them.” How can world’s biggest database of Indian’s biometric data be launched without legal mandate based on hear say. Congress Party should disclose studies and reports if any, which found that deserving were being defrauded.  
Nilekani claims, “With Aadhaar, such diversion is difficult to do, since the beneficiary can be verified using their biometric data, such as a fingerprint. The incentive for a legitimate beneficiary to use Aadhaar to withdraw their benefits – and stop theft of their own benefits is high. In such a scenario, it is increasingly the people most interested in diversion and continuing corruption, who will be most resistant to using Aadhaar for services.”
This is factually incorrect and the inaccuracy of this claim is revealed by the contract agreement which UIDAI itself has signed. In a RTI reply dated October 25, 2013, UIDAI shared its contract agreement with Ernst & Young states in a most startling disclosure from the contract agreement is its admission that “biometric systems are not 100 % accurate”. It admits that “uniqueness of the biometrics is still a postulate.” In an admission that pulverizes the very edifice on which UID/Aadhaar and the NPR rests, it writes, “The loss in information due to limitations of the capture setup or physical conditions of the body, and due (to) the feature representation, there is a non-zero probability that two finger prints or IRIS prints coming from different individuals can be called a match.” This is underlined in bold letters in the contract agreement. In simple words, “non-zero probability that two finger prints or IRIS prints” turning out to be a match means that there is a probability that biometric data of two different individuals can be identical.

Thus, it has been admitted that biometric data is unreliable and is not unique.   

A report “Biometrics: The Difference Engine: Dubious security” published by The Economist in its 1 October 2010 issue observed “Biometric identification can even invite violence. A motorist in Germany had a finger chopped off by thieves seeking to steal his exotic car, which used a fingerprint reader instead of a conventional door lock.” This reveals the frightening ramifications of using biometrics as a basis for identification.
Another report “Biometric Recognition: Challenges and Opportunities” concluded that the current state of biometrics is ‘inherently fallible’. That is one of the findings of a five-year study was jointly commissioned by the CIA, the US Department of Homeland Security and the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency.

As to Nilekani’s contention that “it is increasingly the people most interested in diversion and continuing corruption, who will be most resistant to using Aadhaar for services.” Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) challenges the claim of this Congressman by asking it to release the names of Congress MPs, MLAs and ministers who are promoters of Adhaar to reveal in writing as to who all among them have enrolled for Aadhaar and subjected themselves to biometric profiling. It is the Congress party’s MP’s, MLAs and ministers “who are the people most interested in diversion and continuing corruption.”   
The claim that “Aadhaar is the first identity for a lot of Indians across the country” is factually incorrect. Indians have 16 pre-existing identity proofs endorsed by the Election Commission of India including voter ID cards.   
Echoing his patron Rahul Gandhi, Nilekani’s claims, “For the first time, people have an identity that is not dependent on a card they are holding – they have an identity they can confirm by just providing their fingerprint or iris. And for the first time, their right to identity is implicit and easily established, wherever they are in the country.” This is untrue.
Congress as a party which got 89.11% of its money from unaccounted sources and unnamed sources will have us believe unlike Election Commission of India that all the parliamentary elections and those who were elected were voted without Indians having any identity.   
In his speech at the conference of All India Congress Committee, Rahul Gandhi boasted that he has given right to identity through Aadhaar.

Aarthi Ramachandran, in her book Decoding Rahul Gandhi underlines, "Rahul's approach to change through his backing of for measures such as the UIDAI scheme reveals an unwillingness to engage with the existing system. It is an attempt to superimpose new systems over existing structures. This approach is bound to meet the fate of his experiments in the IYC and the NSUI…" She observes, "Also in the name of better targeting of the poor for state sponsored schemes, the UID programme pays little attention to privacy issues" and notes that Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance "was scathing in its rejection of the scheme…"
Nilekani’s claims and Rahul’s pretensions have already been exposed. Wherever direct cash transfer scheme based on Aadhaar was launched in the states that went for elections, Congress lost. Promises based on biometric Aadhaar are rooted in a make believe world to which Indian voters are allergic to, is shown by the recent assembly elections.

It is noteworthy that in the four states where assembly elections took place, the biometric Aadhaar based direct benefits transfer (DBT) was being implemented. In 154 assembly seats of Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, Indian National Congress, the champion of DBT could win only 17 seats. In Delhi where DBT scheme was taken up in 63 assembly constituencies with Rs. 103 crore in cash transfers, the party won only eight seats. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 31 seats and the Aam Admi Party (AAP) got 28 seats. The verdict is starkly against Aadhaar-based DBT. A report from DNA dated 16 December 2013 has underlined this. Instead of biometric Aadhaar-based DBT being a game changer for the Congress it has emerged as a regime changer.

The electoral verdict is evidence against the diagnosis and remedy of World Bank Group and its Indian votaries. The verdict indicates that political parties that support Aadhaar are bound to pay heavy electoral cost for their involvement and complicity in putting citizens to inconvenience through tried, tested and failed identification technologies of transnational companies.

For Details: Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), Mb: 9818089660,

Monday, March 24, 2014

Why Modi deserves Nishan-e-Pakistan: M.J. AKBAR

NEW DELHI, 31 March — Narendra Modi has done enough by now to win the highest honor that a nation can give. Not our nation. What the chief minister of Gujarat truly deserves is the Nishan-e-Pakistan. There are at least two Indians who, to my knowledge, have received this high honor from Islamabad, the late Morarji Desai and Dilip Kumar.
Neither served the interest of Pakistan remotely as much as Modi has done in the last four weeks. For Modi has been trying to destroy the idea of India as a nation in which every citizen is equal irrespective of his faith. He has provided the evidence that was once offered only as argument.
That is not the only major favor that Modi has done to Pakistan. Till he started his lynch-mob response to the cruel tragedy of Godhra, all the negative focus of South Asia was concentrated on Pakistan and the state of terror that had been spawned by the state of Pakistan, to use a depressing pun.
Modi has, in a space of days, taken Pakistan off the world’s front pages and replaced it with Gujarat. Suddenly, the stories of violence and state-sponsored terror are all coming from Gujarat, each day’s tragedy focused through television cameras. If President Pervez Musharraf has not yet sent a thank you letter to his benefactor in Ahmedabad, then the president is remiss.
The television camera has existed through all the stages of the Ayodhya movement, from its revival by Rajiv Gandhi, misled by Arun Nehru, to the searing Rathyatra of L.K. Advani, to the demolition of the Babri Mosque in December 1992, to the riots and bomb blast that followed.
But television as a news-force did not. Television news was still what Doordarshan chose to show you, and it did not choose to show you very much. Zee was still an incipient dream of Subhash Chandra, offering fresh lines in entertainment that would eventually grow with extraordinary speed to become an empire. Star was but a faint glow over a Hong Kong sky, searching for a focus on India. CNN existed, but more in theory than in fact as cable had not yet begun to chain the living room to the box; BBC was still getting its act together. Channels like Aaj Tak and Sahara were not even conceived. E-mail did not exist.
Modi’s Gujarat has happened after the media revolution, when every story can become world news in a way that is unprecedented. Modi has shamed India before India and before the world. He has unhinged a crucial element in India’s sense of itself as a civilized democracy, and offered every television viewer an image of anarchy wreaking havoc with the wolfish help of a chief minister gone berserk.
That image walked across the world, through the clearing house of American media, even as newspaper journalists confirmed its footprints with detail and analysis that created whirlpools of shock. The shock was not about the violence itself; no one is so naïve as to believe that any society can eliminate the horrors of internecine conflict. The shock was the daily sight and sound of a chief minister justifying lynch mobs, finding excuses for a pogrom and telling blatant lies that were broken up and exposed by reporters.
As if death, arson and revenge were not enough, Modi laced each day with another mental and emotional shock that pandered to the worst aspects of inhuman nature. He valued tragedy on different scales, offering what might be called a two-price theory for death: A Hindu life was worth twice the life of a Muslim. Even to write this seems obscene. Man has not been fortunate enough to create equality among the living but at least there used to be some comfort taken in the fact that death left us all equal. Even that has changed. No responsible Indian has ever thought in this manner through all the horrors that we have witnessed in our nation since its bloodied birth. No Indian can. No Indian will, for such thinking lies outside the ethos, culture and civilization of my India.
Modi belongs to a political party, the BJP, which calls itself more Indian than any other: I doubt if any such communal valuation ever occurred to Prime Minister A.B. Vajpayee or Home Minister L.K. Advani or Human Resources Minister M.M. Joshi, to name the triumvirate at the top of this political hierarchy. Less dramatic perhaps, but of a piece with the twisted thinking that dominates Modi’s politics, are the lies that he has been using ad lib and at random and to everyone, including his own leaders about matters such as relief and rehabilitation.
What is it that makes Modi do what he has done? It cannot be politics alone. He is not the first Indian politician to have played politics with communal riots. That list is long and cuts across political parties. The conventional idea is that he was handed Gujarat at a time when the BJP had lost its moorings, and is doing what is necessary to reconsolidate the Hindu vote. The operative word here is "necessary". For that becomes a subjective interpretation.
Cynicism comes naturally to a politician. Perhaps that is a natural defense mechanism in a difficult job. Cynicism is a non-partisan characteristic. Modi is not a cynical politician. Cynicism implies a degree of indifference, and Modi is not indifferent to anything. He is passionate in whatever he does. But his preferred passion is hatred. This is what makes him unique: He actually uses hatred as a political weapon, and employs both subtle and crude means to provoke a similar passion among others. You can see the difference in his eyes; there is gloat floating in them. This is why it is especially dangerous to leave power in the hands of a man like him. It is almost implicit that anyone who has been soaked in the RSS version of Indian history has acquired a deep sense of grievance against Muslims, but Modi is not the only graduate from the RSS school. You do not see this intense, Nazi-type hatred in either the attitude or the behavior of others from this school; the political stance, even when it is acrid, does not become a personal vendetta against a community.
The Gujarat carnage does not stop because Modi does not have the desire to stop it. In one sense he is helpless, because the vengeful emotion that controls him is far more powerful than any other competing force, even suggestions he may be receiving from his own periodic bouts of good sense. The desire to "punish" Muslims just a little more, to "teach them one last lesson" in some unknown village, to spread the political poison to yet another corner before supplies are curtailed becomes irresistible. Where murder has been prevented by the arrival of civil society, pettiness takes over. Officers who have done their duty and shown that there is an India that can keep hold of its values through the haze of blood are transferred. Relief to refugee camps is held back so that hunger may revive dried tears.
Hatred generates far greater energy than love; that is one of the tragedies of human existence. Love is warm blood; hatred is cold blood. If you need a vehicle for your hate, Mr. Modi, direct it at the evildoers who are guilty; no one will stop you from bringing the guilty of Godhra to justice, and let them rot in their own hell. But to hate the innocent is depravity.
No government can prevent an incident, however evil it might be. Perhaps an instant reaction is also unavoidable. But the margin of error disappears after that. One of the first instructions given to a civil servant during training is how to stop a mob. There are instances in Modi’s Gujarat itself where civil servants have done their duty because their conscience was above the signals of hate they were receiving.
One serious difficulty about using hate as policy is that at some point it begins to consume the perpetrator. Maybe Modi does not understand this, heady as he is with life-and-death power; what is surprising is that Vajpayee refuses to see what is obvious. He is of course being told what Modi wants him to hear; that this politics of revenge has made Modi into some kind of hero, and that this "heroism" will deliver votes. If Mr. Vajpayee believes this then he does not believe a single line of what he himself has written as a poet.
Strange coincidence. Just as I had written the last sentence, a colleague entered my office and handed me an agency story. It was the text of a new poem by the prime minister, written in Nainital.
Geet nahin gata hoon. / Benaqab chehre hain / Dagh barhe gehre hain / Toota tilism aaj / Sach se bhay khaata hoon / Geet nahin gaata hoon. / Lagi kuch aisi nazar / Bikhra sheeshe ka shahar / Apnon ke mele mein / Meet nahin paata hoon / Peeth mein churi-sa chand / Rahu gaya rekha phand / Mukti ke shaano mein / Bandh jaata hoon. / Geet nahin gaata hoon.
I cannot sing a song. The masks are off; the wounds are deep; the mystery is gone; I am afraid of truth; I cannot sing a song. The eye is evil; the city of glass is shattered; even among my own I cannot find my love. The knife in the back is like a moon, and Rahu has crossed the line; instead of salvation I find myself in shackles. I cannot sing a song.
You have felt the pain, prime minister. You must now give the India we want back to us Indians
Published — Sunday 31 March 2002