MATHEW THOMAS
Where living is costly and life is cheap
Where living is costly and life is cheap
Published: Monday, Nov 8, 2010, 8:45 IST
By Mathew Thomas | Place: Bangalore | Agency: DNA
By Mathew Thomas | Place: Bangalore | Agency: DNA
Since then, several millions of ‘desi’ citizens would have driven over potholes,suffered serious injuries and even died.One never hears of any claim for damages. Why? Well, we are different, aren’t we? Our ‘standards’ are different not only in cleanliness but in many other spheres as well. Why not? Why should we always imitate the West? Our culture is different and so are our standards.
As cultures go, our city has a unique blend of the West and the East. The well-heeled youth speak in accented English and do things that seem typically western. They could also be seen doing things very much Indian, at weddings or while celebrating festivals.
The government too has caught the disease of blended culture. There is talk of the high-tech city, with ‘signal-free’ roads, and use of IT in about everything one could possibly imagine. But while going about making this city another ‘Singapore’, as every politician and bureaucrat would proclaim, the government is unable to rid itself of the malaise of negligence bordering on the criminal. After all, have we not seen a good number of deaths due to the negligence of government functionaries?
There is a cardinal principle called public liability in every public work undertaken by authorities concerned. Proper auditing of such liability involves checking every phase of work to ensure minimum trouble and no loss of life and limb to the general public. In Bangalore, nobody has ever spoken of this public need and official virtue. Sad, indeed!
Here, one sees only neglect, not care. It is difficult to fathom why this should be so. The organisations that are responsible for such neglect have, as their heads, very competent people. Many are from the administrative service, which one presumes is meant to serve the people and not cause them injury through negligence. Perhaps, people and the government are equally apathetic and accept everything however slipshod it may be.
Just walk or drive along the city’s main road, named after the nation’s founding father. There is construction debris strewn everywhere. Drains are left open. Electric cables and steel rods protrude from these open drains. Walking along the footpaths is like going over an obstacle course. Our jawans could be trained there for moving on difficult terrain.
It is a simple thing to ensure that contractors remove the debris and fix the drain covers back in their respective places. Not doing so is a matter of attitude. ‘Why do anything now’ seems to be the attitude. People do not complain because they (rightly?) believe that there is no use in complaining. It would be a sheer waste of time and effort and in the bargain, one might also rub some politico or bureaucrat on the wrong side.
There have been extra-governmental organisations of eminent people with all good intentions and credentials, advising the government on many things, from town planning to good governance. There was BATF (Bangalore Agenda Task Force) once and there is now, its new avatar, ABIDe (Agenda for Bangalore Infrastructure Development). The dignitaries who adorn these impressive sounding bodies surely see the state of affairs.
Perhaps, they do ‘advise’, but their advice falls on deaf ears. How could political or bureaucratic ears be cured of such deafness?
It is not just in infrastructure construction that one finds such poor attention to dangers to human life. Take garbage collection. This is an area where there is a stream of experts telling how things could be improved. There are civic activists tirelessly working to change the way garbage is handled. Yet, one has never found a single mention of the horrid conditions in which those engaged in garbage collection do their job.
These people toil daily, sift through the muck with bare hands and feet, often sit in the dirt, and travel in vehicles that sprinkle a good part of the garbage along the way. What work-related diseases they would suffer from is still being ignored. They are part of the ‘unorganised’ sector. What diseases they would spread, also does not bother the officials responsible or the public.
It is not that we do not have laws to punish those guilty of spreading diseases or acting negligently. A number of sections of the Penal Code deal with such conduct. Section 268 is about public nuisance, section 269 is on spreading infectious diseases and section 283 deals with danger or obstruction in public way. It is high time people used these provisions to bring to account their government. Who would like to bell this cat?
— The author is secretary, Citizen’s Action Forum, Bangalore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
26th May 2010
Will unique identity scheme take away privacy of citizens?
By Mathew Thomas
Universal or Unique Identity is sometimes referred to as Unique Identity Number (UIN). The ‘Rams, Rahims and Richards’ of India would be reduced to mere numbers, if this grandiose scheme goes through....
The Central government has come up with an Orwellian scheme for identifying and cataloguing citizens of the country. It is called the Universal or Unique Identity (UID) scheme. An authority called Unique Identity Authority of India (UIAI) has been set up. Some imagine that ‘digital identity biometric smart cards’ would be issued to all people. Some others imagine that cards would not be issued, but only numbers would be given to each citizen.
Hence, the scheme is sometimes referred to as, Unique Identity Number (UIN). The ‘Rams, Rahims and Richards’ of India would be reduced to mere numbers, if this grandiose scheme goes through, as we shall see in this story. Those who control the database of citizens’ particulars would have the whip, not just metaphorically, but also literally.
Not much is known about the purposes of the scheme. A high-profile corporate chieftain, Nandan Nilekani, has been appointed the project head, with Cabinet rank. News reports give different versions. They speak of imaginary benefits, depending on the predilections of the writers. Nilekani’s high-profile media image is perhaps, one reason for the hype, the news generated.
L K Advani, as home minister, had proposed a Multi-purpose National Identity Card (MNIC). In 2003, the NDA government amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, to facilitate the issue of MNIC. The Act provided for penalising citizens with fines up to Rs 1,000 for failing to register, the onus being that on the citizen. Is this feasible, considering our illiteracy and poverty? Nilekani, however, insists, the scheme the UPA government has in mind is voluntary.
As all types of data are expected to be incorporated in the ID card, who will guarantee the personal privacy of the citizens? As it is, there are no provisions in law for protection of personal privacy in India, which most developed countries have.
The scheme is being touted as one that would ensure that the government’s largesse in NREGA and other poverty programmes reach the intended beneficiaries. The IT industry is agog with the prospect of a windfall business opportunity. Microsoft has already come, offering their services.
The dangers, setting up such a database poses to the people of India, are ignored. The government has not spelt out what would be the content of each person’s data in the database, who would have access to it and for what purposes. A news report says, “Banks eye big role in UIN project.” Would KYC responsibility of banks be transferred to UID database?
The government has launched this ‘Tughlaqian’ scheme, without discussion in Parliament. Its dangers are well known. Civil liberties are at peril. Wrong persons gaining access to the database is a real threat. The scope for abuse is immense. The governments of the USA and UK have been forced to abandon similar schemes.
Technology is no answer
It is futile to hope that the scheme would ensure that poverty-alleviation-handouts reach the intended beneficiaries. Technology is incapable of surmounting the kind of corruption we have, or fix social maladies.
As for terrorism, neither does any terrorist need an ID card nor does the lack of one prevent him from carrying out his diabolic deed. Are there not traitors with army ID cards? Is there no better way to fight terrorism? Would not better intelligence, coordination between agencies, better training and equipment do the job?
Identity theft is a major problem even in advanced countries, such as, the USA. A London School of Economics (LSE) report says, “The card system might lead to greater identity fraud — The National Identity Register may pose a far larger risk to the security of UK citizens.”
The LSE estimates costs between £10.6 billion and £19.2 billion. One estimate puts the UID project cost at Rs 1.5 lakh crore. Has the government made a cost-benefit analysis of the expenditure? What are the system maintenance costs? Does it have legislative and budgetary sanction? Could this money be put to better uses?
The UIAI chairperson claimed that the project could be completed in 12 to 18 months. What could be the basis of such a claim? Probably the software could be written up in this time. What about the implementation — how long would this take?
Why has the NIC not been given this task? Why is the project not under the IT ministry? There are questions on the need for, and efficacy/viability of, the scheme. Is this a scheme for issue of an ID card or ID number? Is the card to be carried all the time? Who is to check this? What happens if a person is found to be not carrying the card or loses it? If, instead of a card, it is only an ID number scheme, is the citizen expected to remember the number? What happens if one forgets the number? What happens if the system malfunctions and reports a person, as a non-citizen? What happens if there is a data input error?
Considering all this, it is time to ask: Is our government reducing the Indian people to zeros or mere numbers, by embarking on this harebrained scheme, spending a huge amount of tax-payers’ money without the people’s mandate?
(The writer is secretary, Citizens’ Action Forum)
11th July 2010
“Aadhaar”, meaning foundation, is the “brand name” given to The Union Government's Unique Identity program, abbreviated as, UID. About a year back, The Government announced its launch. It is to cover all people of the country. The program envisages identifying each person residing in India uniquely with fingerprint and iris scan biometrics and allocating a unique number to each. A national database with this information is to be set up. The program, although touted out as one that would eliminate leakages of welfare monies spent in MGNREGS, PDS and subsidised LPG schemes, seems to have ulterior motives. Media reports suggest that the UID database would be linked to NATGRID, a national information grid for criminal investigative and anti-terrorism activities. The police, IB, RAW and such agencies are to be provided access to the database. A government authority, the Unique Identity Authority of India, UIDAI has been set up, with Nandan Nilekani as its chairperson, through a notification. UIDAI was allocated a budget of Rs. 120 Crores last year and Rs. 1950 Crores this year. Neither UIDAI nor The Government has stated that combating crime or fighting terrorism is an objective of the UID program. The silence of both these on this objective raises suspicions regarding their true intentions. While so, UIDAI has claimed savings from preventing leakages of welfare funds of Rs. 20,000 Crores per annum. Strangely, the project has been launched without any feasibility study or detailed project report.
Identical programs in the US for combating terrorism and in the UK for preventing illegal immigration, met with strong public resistance, and disapproval from political parties. These programs have since been given up. A London School of Economics [LSE] study of the UK program found the project not feasible and opined that such a database would itself become a target for terrorist attack. The UK initiative was for controlling illegal immigration. In the US, the objective was counter-terrorism. Resistance from public in both countries was caused by fears that the database could become a surveillance tool in the hands of government. LSE added that the database would not serve its intended purposes. LSE estimated it cost at over £ 10 Billion. Extrapolating this estimate to arrive at probable costs of the Indian UID program would lead to a figure of Rs. 1.5 Lakh Crores.
There has been no discussion in Parliament. Evidently, The Government appears keen on pushing this program through surreptitiously, as it anticipates public and political resistance, should its real purposes become known. There are dissenting voices within The Government from those who caution that this tool could very well be used against them, when out of power. Media has been carried away by the public image of the chairperson. Press and TV interviews have largely carried his version of UID. It started out as a national ID card. When this was found infeasible, UIDAI changed tack and announced that UID would be a mere number. He said that it would be voluntary, and added that it would be “demand-driven”. The idea is that banks, phone companies etc could use the database for identifying their customers by paying a fee to UIDAI. What was left unsaid was that these institutions could make it compulsory to have a UID number – a rather crude or deft ‘sleight of hand’, depending on the hearer’s ability to decipher the hidden message.
Public resistance is now building up. NGOs have started questioning The Government’s intentions. Articles and interviews have been published in a number of publications, voicing concern. Experts have questioned the technical feasibility. Several questions of legality and fundamental rights are involved. The Supreme Court has held that the right to privacy is inherent in the right to life enshrined in Art 21 of the Constitution. The propriety and financial prudence in embarking on a project with such a huge public expenditure, without so much as even a feasibility study, needs serious questioning. The one who heads the project is from the private sector, where not a paisa would be spent without justification. The cavalier fashion in which, both he and The Government are proceeding on UID, makes a mockery of government’s accountability. Is it that private sector expenditure needs shareholder approval, whereas public monies could be squandered? The very credibility of both UIDAI and The Government is in question and they would do well to answer the questions raised here. Both of them need to ponder on the need and advisability of attempting this rather foolhardy venture in a country of this size, with its hugely illiterate and poverty-stricken people. ‘Aadhaar’ is certainly a shaky foundation
_____________________________________________________
14th July 2010
Secretary, Citizens Action Forum, Bangalore
To: The Chairperson, UIDAI, New Delhi
Dear Sir,
This is in response to your call for public comments / suggestions on the draft NIA Act. The proposal to issue identification numbers to every individual residing in India is a scheme of humongous proportions. The Bill seeks to provide statutory sanction to the Authority that is to oversee the scheme and implement it. This needs extremely consideration. Time provided for such consideration and public discussion is woefully inadequate. I request extension of the time by a month. During this period, public discussions may be held to apprise people about the scheme.
Given below are my views.
It appears congruous that you are now proposing an Act of Parliament, when the "Authority" has been functioning for almost a year and expending public funds. Does this mean that the "Authority" has so far been functioning without a legal mandate?
I presume that an "Authority" is one, which exercises authority on behalf of government, which in turn is accountable to the people of this country through the Parliament. The need for UID numbers and hence an "Authority" for implementing such a scheme to issue numbers for all people residing in the country called, UIDAI, has not been discussed in Parliament. This is a typical case of "acting first and thinking later".
To: The Chairperson, UIDAI, New Delhi
Dear Sir,
This is in response to your call for public comments / suggestions on the draft NIA Act. The proposal to issue identification numbers to every individual residing in India is a scheme of humongous proportions. The Bill seeks to provide statutory sanction to the Authority that is to oversee the scheme and implement it. This needs extremely consideration. Time provided for such consideration and public discussion is woefully inadequate. I request extension of the time by a month. During this period, public discussions may be held to apprise people about the scheme.
Given below are my views.
It appears congruous that you are now proposing an Act of Parliament, when the "Authority" has been functioning for almost a year and expending public funds. Does this mean that the "Authority" has so far been functioning without a legal mandate?
I presume that an "Authority" is one, which exercises authority on behalf of government, which in turn is accountable to the people of this country through the Parliament. The need for UID numbers and hence an "Authority" for implementing such a scheme to issue numbers for all people residing in the country called, UIDAI, has not been discussed in Parliament. This is a typical case of "acting first and thinking later".
Attaching UIDAI as an office of the Planning Commission and functioning as such is circumventing Parliament.
It show scant regard for the institution of Parliament and democratic processes. I suggest that you withdraw the Bill and first discuss in Parliament the need for UID numbers linked to biometrics, justify the need and then come up with the Bill.
In such a discussion, financial prudence and respect for norms for expenditure of public monies, would call for a feasibility study of the UID project and a cost-benefit analysis. If such study and analysis has not been done, then I suggest that you carry out the same before bringing up the proposal for discussion in Parliament.
The objective of the Bill is the "To provide for the establishment of the National Identification Authority of India for the purpose of issuing identification numbers to individuals residing in India --- to facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals ----". Implicit in this statement of objectives is an assumption that identification numbers (and biometric information of individuals) are necessary for facilitating access to benefits and services. This assumption needs to be established by a transparent and scientific process. This is especially true when the expenditure involved is immense. I suggest that you do not proceed with the Bill or the project until the assumption is found true.
Clause 3 of Chapter II of the proposed Bill says, Every resident shall be entitled to obtain Aadhaar number on his (this gender specific) demographic information and biometric information to the Authority ---". The wording of the Clause makes it appear the this is a voluntary act of individuals residing in India. If the objective of issuing identification numbers is to facilitate access to benefits and services, but obtaining the identification number is voluntary, does it mean that the people who do not desire to obtain the number would or could be denied the benefits and services? If such benefits and services could be denied merely because the individual chooses not to obtain the number, would this not be a violation of the individual’s constitutional rights and the claim that this is voluntary, a mere facade? I therefore suggest that a clause be incorporated in the Bill if, when and after Parliament approves the necessity of issuing identification numbers to individuals, and the need for the Bill arises.
In view of the above, I suggest that UIDAI cease all operations until, the necessity for identification numbers is accepted by Parliament, and feasibility study establishes the cost-benefits of the scheme.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Mathew Thomas
____________________________________________________
It show scant regard for the institution of Parliament and democratic processes. I suggest that you withdraw the Bill and first discuss in Parliament the need for UID numbers linked to biometrics, justify the need and then come up with the Bill.
In such a discussion, financial prudence and respect for norms for expenditure of public monies, would call for a feasibility study of the UID project and a cost-benefit analysis. If such study and analysis has not been done, then I suggest that you carry out the same before bringing up the proposal for discussion in Parliament.
The objective of the Bill is the "To provide for the establishment of the National Identification Authority of India for the purpose of issuing identification numbers to individuals residing in India --- to facilitate access to benefits and services to such individuals ----". Implicit in this statement of objectives is an assumption that identification numbers (and biometric information of individuals) are necessary for facilitating access to benefits and services. This assumption needs to be established by a transparent and scientific process. This is especially true when the expenditure involved is immense. I suggest that you do not proceed with the Bill or the project until the assumption is found true.
Clause 3 of Chapter II of the proposed Bill says, Every resident shall be entitled to obtain Aadhaar number on his (this gender specific) demographic information and biometric information to the Authority ---". The wording of the Clause makes it appear the this is a voluntary act of individuals residing in India. If the objective of issuing identification numbers is to facilitate access to benefits and services, but obtaining the identification number is voluntary, does it mean that the people who do not desire to obtain the number would or could be denied the benefits and services? If such benefits and services could be denied merely because the individual chooses not to obtain the number, would this not be a violation of the individual’s constitutional rights and the claim that this is voluntary, a mere facade? I therefore suggest that a clause be incorporated in the Bill if, when and after Parliament approves the necessity of issuing identification numbers to individuals, and the need for the Bill arises.
In view of the above, I suggest that UIDAI cease all operations until, the necessity for identification numbers is accepted by Parliament, and feasibility study establishes the cost-benefits of the scheme.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Mathew Thomas
____________________________________________________
28th July 2010
330 - UID project a waste of money, say NGOs
UID project a waste of money, say NGOs
Bangalore Mirror Bureau
Posted On Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 05:23:17 AM
The national unique identification project (UID), headed by business icon Nandan Nilekani, is running into opposition from NGOs, researchers and independent activists.
A campaign started against the project by Mathew Thomas, general secretary, Citizens Action Forum, Padmanabhanagar, has gained widespread support from NGOs and researchers. Its main concern is that UID benefits don’t justify the money spent on it.
Thomas said, “A cost-benefit analysis should be done before pumping in huge amounts. The current estimated cost of the project is Rs 45,000 crore. We would like to know if the benefits match it.” The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) says the project can check fake ID cards and save crores in the public distribution system. The Centre for Internet Society, Domlur, Citizens action Forum, Padmanabhanagar, and Alternative Law Forum, Infantry Road, jointly held a press conference on Monday and announced their opposition to the project. They have sent petitions to 300 MPs, asking them to raise the issue in parliament. The campaign feels UID cannot stop fake ID cards, as these details are also in the hands of corrupt officials.
Thomas said, “In this system you are giving all details to officials. Any government department can all your information, including your credit card numbers and bank account details.”
The campaigners feel linking biometrics to the project has an added disadvantage. He quoted the report published in Bangalore Mirror on July 25 about police harassing a jeweller and taking his fingerprints.
“Imagine, if they have our fingerprints, they can fix us in any case. It will be like a police state. Your right to privacy will be violated,” said Thomas.
A study conducted by the London School of Economics about a similar project in UK said it was not worth the money. “They scrapped their project,” Thomas said. Vinay Baindur, an independent researcher, said, “More time should be given to discuss and debate this problem, and concerns should be addressed.”
The group is planning to launch a countrywide campaign against the project.
________________________________________________
UID project a waste of money, say NGOs
Bangalore Mirror Bureau
Posted On Wednesday, July 28, 2010 at 05:23:17 AM
The national unique identification project (UID), headed by business icon Nandan Nilekani, is running into opposition from NGOs, researchers and independent activists.
A campaign started against the project by Mathew Thomas, general secretary, Citizens Action Forum, Padmanabhanagar, has gained widespread support from NGOs and researchers. Its main concern is that UID benefits don’t justify the money spent on it.
Thomas said, “A cost-benefit analysis should be done before pumping in huge amounts. The current estimated cost of the project is Rs 45,000 crore. We would like to know if the benefits match it.” The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) says the project can check fake ID cards and save crores in the public distribution system. The Centre for Internet Society, Domlur, Citizens action Forum, Padmanabhanagar, and Alternative Law Forum, Infantry Road, jointly held a press conference on Monday and announced their opposition to the project. They have sent petitions to 300 MPs, asking them to raise the issue in parliament. The campaign feels UID cannot stop fake ID cards, as these details are also in the hands of corrupt officials.
Thomas said, “In this system you are giving all details to officials. Any government department can all your information, including your credit card numbers and bank account details.”
The campaigners feel linking biometrics to the project has an added disadvantage. He quoted the report published in Bangalore Mirror on July 25 about police harassing a jeweller and taking his fingerprints.
“Imagine, if they have our fingerprints, they can fix us in any case. It will be like a police state. Your right to privacy will be violated,” said Thomas.
A study conducted by the London School of Economics about a similar project in UK said it was not worth the money. “They scrapped their project,” Thomas said. Vinay Baindur, an independent researcher, said, “More time should be given to discuss and debate this problem, and concerns should be addressed.”
The group is planning to launch a countrywide campaign against the project.
________________________________________________
