Why AAP Government In Delhi Should Abandon Biometric Aadhaar
To Reverse Congress & BJP's Legacy Of "Intrusive Bullying"?
By Gopal Krishna
10 February, 2015
Countercurrents.org
Dear Arvind Kejriwalji,
This with reference to an interview wherein you said that "there are
certain objections, which need to be addressed" with regard to the
Biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number scheme (The
Tribune, 9th February, 2014), I submit that there is a logical
compulsion for AAP to seek removal of aadhaar from the list of
identity proofs having taken cognizance of “objections" against the
aadhaar that have remained unaddressed and more gnawing concerns that
have emerged since then. The political class in general has failed to
stop indiscriminate biometric profiling of Indians. It is noteworthy
that in a unanimous verdict, European Court of Human Rights has
questioned indiscriminate profiling. AAP can lead the efforts to
reverse the aadhaar related initiatives taking note of experience in
China, UK, Australia, USA, Philippines, France and elsewhere. Kindly
excuse me for a long letter but concerns about mankind's biggest
biometric database created the need for this elaborate write up.
This is also to draw your attention towards the attached order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court dated March 24, 2014 and the report of the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance on biometric aadhaar
amidst the demand of 17 eminent citizens led by late Justice V R
Krishna Iyer demanding stoppage of the biometric Unique Identification
(UID)/aadhaar number and related projects. It demonstrates that all
the circulars and orders of Government of India and State Governments
are illegal and illegitimate. This order which was passed after your
February 2014 interview merits your immediate attention.
I submit that the information gathered using RTI has revealed that
entire information of the citizens and residents is going to be
admittedly stored online and on cloud under the Digital India
Initiative of Government of India which, will be available to
everybody inside and outside the country. The foreign companies like
M/s L1 Solutions, a subsidiary of French Conglomerate Safran and
Accenture, a US company who are de-duplicating the enrolment at the
rate of Rs 2.75 per de-duplication are admittedly storing the
biometric and demographic data for 7 years in violation of Hon’ble
Supreme Court’s order passed on 24.3.2014. In electronic age storage
of data even for one minute by any entity means storage for eternity.
This storage of the biometric data of Indians is not for free. Indian
residents and citizens are paying for it at rate of Rs 2.75 paisa per
biometric de-duplication and will do so for umpteenth time!
I submit that after refusing to share contract documents for years,
the UIDAI finally provided it under the RTI Act, with important pages
missing. In the matter of Right to Information (RTI) application, on
14th October, 2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, Central
Information Commission (CIC) wrote a letter on behalf of Sharat
Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC to Central Public Information
Officer (CPIO) & Deputy Director, UIDAI. The letter states, “I am
directed to convey that you should, within two weeks of the receipt of
this order, provide to the Appellant the limited information i.e.
financial quotation/ price by the third party firms in the subject
tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the
competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the
contracts have already expired.” The RTI application was filed
seeking a complete copy of the contract UIDAI signed with L1 Identity
Solutions for Biometric Technology, on 24th August, 2010 and a copy of
the contract UIDAI signed with Accenture for Biometric Technology, on
1 September 2010. Responding to this letter, Subrata Das, the CPIO &
Deputy Director, UIDAI wrote to the RTI Appellant on 22th October,
2014 in compliance with the CIC decision on the second Appeal hearing
dated 30th September, 2014.
UIDAI’s letter reads, “The requisite letter in compliance with the CIC
decision is as under:
(i) financial quotation/ price quoted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd is
Rs 2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted
Transaction for De-duplication Services (ii) financial quotation/price
quoted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd is Rs2.75
(inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted
Transaction for De-duplication Services
This reply implies that for each of the 100 crore Indian residents
targeted for aadhaar enrolment, the taxpayer through the central
government will have to incur the cost of Rs2.75 to the companies in
question. This is significant because this is not a one-time cost but
each time de-duplication of Aadhaar number is done, the cost will be
incurred. Besides other gnawing concerns about an assault on human
rights, national security, economy and sovereignty, this is yet
another case of foreign companies withholding transfer of technology
from developing countries.
I submit that UID/aadhaar violates human rights, right to privacy as
well as other Constitutional rights, the application of UID was
admittedly restricted to ‘civilian application’ and but now it has
been extended to defence application.
I submit that the 6th Federal Council meeting of the National
Federation of Civil Accounts Associations held on 18th and 19th
September 2014 in Cochin passed a resolution urging the Government of
India to delink the aadhar from the process of implementation of
Biometric attendance system and before implementing the new scheme of
biometric attendance system in the Central Government Offices.
I submit that the 1500 page manifesto titled “2083: A European
Declaration of Independence” brought out by Norwegian gunman and
neo-Crusader, Anders Behring Breivik who carried out the heinous
attacks on 22 July 2011 by bombing government buildings in Oslo
killing his fellow citizens merits study. This manifesto refers to the
word “identity” over 100 times, “unique” over 40 times and
“identification” over 10 times. There is reference to “state-issued
identity cards”, “converts’ identity cards”, “identification card”,
“fingerprints”, “DNA” etc. The words in this manifesto give a sense of
déjà vu when one examines the ongoing implementation of biometric
aadhaar. I wonder what if an exercise similar to the one recommended
in the infamous manifesto has an official sanction in the form of
biometric aadhaar.
During a recent visit to France and Geneva to give testimony to a 52
Member Group of European MPs on the need for regulating transnational
corporations and to attend the 3rd UN Forum on Business and Human
Rights, I was informed by a German public policy researcher that the
real scandal in Germany was not about the phone tapping of German
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s by USA’s National Security Agency (NSA), an
entity declared unconstitutional by a US District Court). She
underlined that the real scam was that the biometric profile was all
the German government and intelligence officials are available with
the NSA.
I submit that the democratic mandate of the last parliamentary
elections was against biometric aadhaar. In the absence of robust
application of legal mind in the State, the Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) has generated crores of biometric aadhaar
numbers of Indian residents although the project does not have the
required legal mandate after the proposed National Identification
Authority of India Bill, 2010 was trashed by the Parliamentary
Committee in its report to the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
I submit that unmindful of this Central Government's promptness to
promote and support aadhaar is coincidentally supported by Shri Mukesh
Ambani of Reliance Industries (RIL) who has expressed his support for
biometric identification saying, “Aadhaar, an initiative of Unique
Identification Authority of India, will soon support the world’s
largest online platform to deliver government welfare services
directly to the poor.” He has written this in a chapter titled ‘Making
the next leap’ endorsing biometric profiling based identification in
the book ‘Reimagining India’ edited by McKinsey & Company published by
Simon & Schuster in November 2013. This appears to be an explicit
signal to the political parties and media houses who receive direct
and indirect corporate donations from companies as their clients in
myriad disguises.
I submit that before their death 17 eminent citizens including Justice
Iyer, Shri K G Kannabiran, noted human rights lawyer and Shri S R
Sankaran, noted people’s IAS Officer issued a Statement of Concern
against the biometric UID/aadhaar number. The other signatories
included Prof Romila Thapar, historian, Justice A.P. Shah, Retired
Chief Justice of High Court of Delhi, Prof. Upendra Baxi, noted jurist
and ex-Vice Chancellor of Universities of Surat and Delhi, Trilochan
Sastry, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore and Association for
Democratic Reforms (ADR), Bezwada Wilson, leader of Safai Karamchari
Andolan and Prof. Jagdish Chhokar, ex- IIM, Ahmedabad, and ADR.
I submit that Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer, a people’s judge of the
Supreme Court who passed away on December 4, 2014 in Kochi was opposed
to biometric aadhaar and Planning Commission’s UIDAI. Although his
views have been endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance, Supreme Court, Punjab and Haryana High Court and National
Human Rights Commission besides European Court of Human Rights,
governments of UK, France, Australia, China and Supreme Court of
Philippines, the present Bhartiya Janta Party led Government like the
previous Congress Party led Government is bulldozing the biometric
data based 12 digit UID number branded as aadhaar.
I also wish to draw your attention towards what Thomas Jefferson, the
principal author of the US Declaration of Independence (1776) and the
third President of the US (1801-1809) said. He said," "When the people
fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the
people, there is liberty."
I wish to draw your immediate attention towards the recommendations of
the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in its report
presented to the Lok Sabha and laid it in Rajya Sabha and a
Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II dated December 18, 2014 regarding
“AADHAAR (UIDAI) enrolment camp which was set up exclusively for the
Members of Parliament who have not been enrolled as yet” published
under the signature of Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. This seems to
be an act of ignorance regarding the legislative process on aadhaar by
the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The enrolment camp continued till
December 23, 2014. A release of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) on
behalf of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs stated that Lok Sabha
Speaker Smt Sumitra Mahajan inaugurated Aadhaar registration of
Members of Parliament in the Parliament House on December 11, 2014.
I submit that such exercise of power by the office bearers of
Parliament in order to facilitate world’s largest biometric database
appears unprecedented. It is likely to be deemed as an act of
institutional subversion by the experts of parliamentary processes,
conventions and future generations. The creation of this database is
linked to World Bank’s eTransform Initiative with several undemocratic
transnational companies and is illegally and illegitimately being
linked to electoral database, Census and National Population Register.
I submit that this appeared to be aimed at appeasing US President Shri
Barack Obama who was the chief guest on the republic day. The republic
is apparently being put under surveillance through the universal
aadhaar coverage, Shri Obama's interest in aadhaar is quite known. Not
surprisingly, President Obama visited an Aadhaar enrolment station in
Mumbai in 2010 during his last visit to India. His delegation included
the CEO of L1 Identities Solution, then a US MNC (now a subsidiary of
Safran Group, a French company with French Govt’s stake in it).
I submit that Wikileaks had revealed that US agencies are closely
monitoring the implementation of the project.
This exercise has made a mockery of the legislative process and the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance which noted that the
Government has “admitted that (a) no committee has been constituted to
study the financial implications of the UID scheme; and (b)
comparative costs of the aadhaar number and various existing ID
documents are also not available.” In view of such glaring omissions,
the Committee denounced the UID/aadhaar project as `unethical and
violative of Parliament's prerogatives' and as akin to an ordinance
when the Parliament is in session.
It must be recalled that The National Identification Authority of
India Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 3rd December,
2010. The Speaker, Lok Sabha in consultation with the Chairman, Rajya
Sabha referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance. The Standing Committee presented the Report to the Lok Sabha
and laid it in Rajya Sabha on 13th December 2011.
The Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance has
specifically raised questions about the legality of the collection of
biometrics while creating a citizen/resident data base. The Report (in
the section on Observations/Recommendations) reads: “The collection of
biometric information and its linkage with personal information
without amendment to the Citizenship Act 1955 as well as the
Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity
Cards) Rules 2003, appears to be beyond the scope of subordinate
legislation, which needs to be examined in detail by Parliament.”
I submit that the complicity of the senior office bearers of both the
Houses of the Parliament indicates that the office bearers are
apparently complicit in illegitimate and censured acts of the
executive. It is quite bizarre that they undertook this despite
knowing the fate of The National Identification Authority of India
Bill in both its 2010 and 2013 incarnations. It demonstrates quite an
alarming silence of all the legislators in general but especially of
those who were members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Finance that trashed the aadhaar Bill and the project drawing on
global experience from UK, Australia, China, France, USA, Philippines
and others.
In the current context, Section 57 of the rejected aadhaar Bill which
was trashed merit attention because it reveals executive’s intent to
take legislative consent for biometric aadhaar and related initiatives
for granted.
Anything done under the Planning Commission’s notification dated
January 28, 2009 that set up the UIDAI “shall be deemed to have been
done or taken under the corresponding provision of this Act”. This
created a logical compulsion for the legislature to rigorously examine
the various activities undertaken by the UIDAI as it is likely to have
serious consequences in connection with identification of persons, who
the information is handed over to, with whom contracts have been
entered, the non-existence of a data protection law, privacy law and
its inherent possible structural link with the proposed Human DNA
Profiling Identity Bill. This is significant because the aadhaar Bill
did not define biometric data and DNA and voice samples are part of
biometric data besides finger prints and iris scan.
It is quite apparent that after central government employees including
defence employees, the MPs, it will be the turn of the MLAs, MLCs and
other elected representatives of the Panchayati Raj institutions and
municipalities to be targeted on priority basis for biometric aadhaar
entrapment.
I submit that the Statement of Concern of eminent citizens further
stated, “National IDs have been abandoned in the US, Australia and the
newly-elected British government. The reasons have predominantly been:
costs and privacy. If it is too expensive for the US with a population
of 308 million, and the UK with 61 million people, and Australia with
21 million people, it is being asked why India thinks it can
prioritise its spending in this direction. In the UK, the Home
Secretary explained that they were abandoning the project because it
would otherwise be `intrusive bullying’ by the state, and that the
government intended to be the `servant’ of the people, and not their
`master’. Is there a lesson in it for us? In the late nineties, the
Supreme Court of Philippines struck down the President’s Executive
Order A.O 308 which instituted a biometric based national ID system
calling it unconstitutional on two grounds – the overreach of the
executive over the legislative powers of the congress and invasion of
privacy. The same is applicable in India – UIDAI has been constituted
on the basis of a GoI notification and there is a fundamental risk to
civil liberties with the convergence of UID…etc.”
The Statement of Concern which was signed by Justice Iyer concluded,
“We, therefore, ask that the project be halted, A feasibility study be
done covering all aspects of this issue, experts be tasked with
studying its constitutionality, the law on privacy be urgently worked
on (this will affect matters way beyond the UID project), a cost :
benefit analysis be done and a public, informed debate be conducted
before any such major change be brought in.”
This is the statement of the same Justice Iyer on whose passing away
President Shri Pranab Mukherjee said, “As an eminent jurist, he used
law as an instrument of social engineering and social change making
justice accessible to all, including the marginalized and the
vulnerable. As a judge of the Supreme Court of India, he made immense
contribution to the development of human rights jurisprudence. His sad
demise leaves a void which is difficult to fill.”
I submit that greeting Justice Iyer on his 100th birthday, Prime
Minister, Shri Narendra Modi said, “Legal luminary, philosopher and
intellectual, Justice Krishna Iyer is an Institution in himself, who
dedicated his life to the Nation. Justice Iyer’s life and works are an
inspiration to all of us. My interactions with him have been very
enriching. I learnt a lot from him,”
But when it comes to following Justice Iyer’s recommendations on
biometric aadhaar, the government seems to ignore it and follow the
advice of India’s richest man whose name features in the list of those
who hoard black money in foreign banks.
I submit that Aadhaar numbers meant for residents of India was
repeatedly mentioned in the Congress manifesto in 2014 Lok Sabha
elections. The manifesto read, it “will ensure that all Indian
residents have a unique Aadhaar number. It can be used as proof of
identity and proof as residence.” Supreme Court has overruled Congress
plan to link any service to aadhaar in its order of March 24, 2014.
It is noteworthy that Election Commission of India has announced that
if one does not Voter Identity Cards, there are 14 alternative
documents to proof one’s identity, aadhaar isn’t mentioned in its
advertisements.
I submit that during the election campaign for the Lok Sabha elections
Shri Narendra Modi and his party opposed aadhaar but on 1st May, 2012,
he himself enrolled for aadhaar by giving his biometric fingerprints
as per the website of Shri Modi and prior to that Gujarat Government
signed a MoU to implement aadhaar. But he endorsed Court’s order
against aadhaar during the Lok Sabha 2014 election campaign. After
becoming the Prime Ministerial and after meeting Shri Nandan Nilekani
on July 1st, 2014, he took somersault and started promoting biometric
aadhaar.
I submit that the Memorandum of understanding (MoU) to implement
aadhaar was signed with Unique Identification Authority of India
(UIDAI) when Communist Party of India (Marxist)—CPI(M) was in power in
West Bengal. But although Trinamool Congress (TMC) got a resolution
passed in the State Assembly against aadhaar being made mandatory, it
has not annulled the MoU and has not sought the abandonment of the
project. TMC and CPI (M) seem to have similar position on aadhaar they
voted together for the first time for the passage of the resolution.
I submit that Kerala’s leader of the opposition Shri VS Achuthanandan
from CPI (M) as opposition leader asked the government to drop the
‘Aadhaar' project on 26th August, 2011. But as Kerala Chief Minister
Shri Achuthanandan, just like Modi had launched the aadhaar project.
I submit that in Tripura, where CPI (M) rules, it became the first
state in the northeast where the aadhaar scheme was launched on 2
December 2010. Quite belatedly, after Tripura Government received the
award from the Indian National Congress led government for
successfully implementing aadhaar, on 25 September 2013, the CPI (M)
issued a statement titled “Aaadhar Illegal” and later expressed grave
concerns about its relationship with foreign intelligence companies.
I submit that JD (U) leader, as Bihar chief minister, Shri Nitish
Kumar revealed his position by launching biometric e-Shakti initiative
in Bihar but the same has been abandoned. But it signed MoU to
implement aadhaar in the state that is unfolding in a business as
usual manner.
I submit that Samajwadi Party ruled state is also implementing the MoU
to implement aadhaar that signed during Bahujan Samaj Party’s regime.
Similar is the case with Biju Janata Dal ruled Odisha state.
I submit that on 29th September 2013, as Tamil Nadu chief minister Ms
J Jayalalithaa wrote a letter to the Prime Minister questioning
mandatory provision related to aadhaar but stopped short of seeking
its scrapping.
I submit that on 22nd October, 2013, BJP vice president Smriti Irani
made a statement against aadhhaar. Leaders like BJP’s South Bangalore
candidate, Shri Anant Kumar too have echoed sentiments against aadhaar
during their election campaign. At present both are union ministers
and are happily promoting aadhaar’s implementation.
I submit that quite like Congress, CPI (M), TMC, SP, BSP, BJD and JD
(U) and BJP have failed to announce that since biometric aadhaar
violates constitutional rights, they will cancel the MoUs that they
signed for their implementation in view of PSC’s report, Supreme
Court’s order and international experience.
I submit that in one of the earliest documents that refer UIDAI is a
14-page long document titled ‘Strategic Vision: Unique Identification
of Residents’ prepared by Wipro Ltd for the Planning Commission
envisaged the close linkage that the UIDAI’s aadhhar would have with
the electoral database. The use of electoral database mentioned in
Wipro’s document remains on the agenda of the proponents of aadhaar.
It is quite possible to merge the UID numbers of Electronic Voting
Machines (EVMs) and UID/aadhaar number of Indian voters. Will such
convergence save democracy or undermine it?
In India, the origin of aadhaar lies in Shri Rahul Gandhi’s failed
attempt to train Indian Youth Congress (IYC) and National Students'
Union of India (NSUI) wherein a web-based Pehchaan (identity) platform
was set up "as a mechanism to identify and promote elected
office-bearers at every level." His approach was bound to meet the
fate of his experiments in the IYC and the NSUI. Aadhaar scheme
attempted to undermine all the existing institutions. It is strange
as to why non-Congress political parties maintain silence about the
emergency architecture based on a database that is stored on cloud
over which India has no jurisdiction akin to what has been decided for
Congress through Google's cloud computing, which is in agreement with
IBM since 2007. IBM has not denied its involvement in the holocaust in
Germany where it was involved in the census operations.
It seems understandable for the Congressmen in provinces to be
obedient persons. But it is inexplicable as to why when the Pehchaan
(identity) platform of the Congress which was extended the whole
country even non-Congress parties agreed to it.
I submit that when you took cognizance of “objections” against the 12
digit Unique Identification (UID) Number branded as aadhaar, it
emerged as a ray of hope that on your examination you will realize how
aadhaar is not an identification card but a biometric identifier
number that verifies citizens as subjects.
I submit that state governments run by non-BJP and non-Congress
parties must apply their legal minds to abandon biometric data
collection the way it has been done in UK, US, France, China and
Australia before being compelled by the Court to do so. They need to
ask: do political patrons of the UID have their own aadhaar number.
Now these parties have no excuse to postpone call for boycott and
civil disobedience movement against biometric identification in any
form.
I submit that during the previous regime of AAP led Government; I
visited Secretariat and noticed that biometric aadhaar was being
considered as one of the identity proofs at Delhi Secretariat. It is
possible that residues of Congress regime created this situation. It
appeared that AAP did not realize that it is one of the pernicious
residual legacies of Congress Government that merit immediate
attention and action. I hope in that during your current tenure you
will set it right after rigorous examination of the issues involved.
In his book The Economics of Innocent Fraud, John Kenneth Galbraith
wrote, "Out of the pecuniary and political pressures and fashions of
the time, economics and larger economic and political system cultivate
their own version of truth. This last has no necessary relation to
reality...what is convenient to believe is greatly preferred...It is
what serves, or is not adverse to, influential economic, political and
social interest." Galbraith also wrote, "One must accept a continuing
divergence between approved and conditioned belief and the reality. In
the end, it is the reality that counts."
I wish to submit that most political parties greatly prefer "what is
convenient to believe" preferred" in the face of marketing blitzkrieg
by vendors of biometric identification technologies. I hope AAP will
undo the damages done by Congress and BJP regime by taking
inconvenient decisions in the interest of citizen’s rights of the
present and future generations.
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) is involved in the research
and advocacy against surveillance technologies since 2010. It has
appeared before the relevant Parliamentary Committee that questioned
the biometric identification of Indians without any legal mandate.
In the face of such assault on citizens’ rights and the emergence of a
regime that is making legislatures subservient to database and data
mining companies, the urgent intervention of the progressive political
parties, legislators and informed citizens must not be postponed
anymore.
In view of the above, CFCL demands that even at this late stage
aadhaar and related schemes be halted and await Hon’ble Supreme
Court’s final verdict in this regard. AAP should seek a white paper on
the legality of biometric data collection and work undertaken under
the project.
In view of the above, I seek your urgent intervention even as the
biometric profile of every current and future Indian political leader
and official is being stored by foreign governments and companies, yet
another act of belittling state legislatures and parliament has been
performed with impunity.
I will be happy to share more details and documents in this regard and
meet you with a delegation in this regard at the earliest as per your
convenience.
Warm Regards
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)
E-mail:[email protected]
.
Comments are moderated