Aadhaar verdict
It was unfair to make mandatory the Aadhaar for subsidies (“Aadhaar doesn’t work. Supreme Court’s judgement cannot change this reality by denying the facts”). It is well-established that with age or hard labour, the fingerprints of people can change. How can the law of on any land allow someone to starve to death if their biometric identity cannot be verified? The honourable Supreme Court should re-examine this. – Narendra Singh
***
I respectfully differ with the author’s opinion on Aadhaar and the Supreme Court verdict. I believe the court has balanced different aspects to a reasonable extent, given the circumstances. The author writes that many people are excluded because of a number of reasons and I agree. The actual rate of failure, or exclusion, may be somewhere around 20% (as indicated by various reports and government surveys). So the question is, can a framework with a very high rate of success (80%) be scrapped because of a failure rate of 20%?
I think not, and this is where I also find the court verdict commendable. We should recognise that the Aadhaar scheme is useful for 80% of its recipients and we should engage with the government so that the success rate is improved substantially. We should try to reach a success rate of 95%-99% so that almost everyone benefits. The author’s position, of scrapping the project entirely, is in my opinion a mistaken one. We need to recognise its existing shortcomings and improve it instead. – Sanjoy Chanda
***
The law passed by the Supreme Court has several inconsistencies. It forces individuals to part with their biometric data to prove that they are not income tax offenders. Therefore all the people in the country are electronically bound and there is definitely a risk of mass surveillance. Although the court has said that bank accounts can be delinked, bank account details will be revealed while filling IT returns.
While balancing the right to dignity of some with the right to privacy of others, the verdict seems to be ignorant of the overall concept of rights. The role of a government is to protect individual rights against force or fraud. In this case, the government and court have inverted this moral principle and are acting as perpetrators of force on the unarmed and right-less citizens. – Geetha Sethurajan
***
Were these poor people better off when there was no Aadhaar? Was there no difficulty in getting rations before Aadhaar? Or has Aadhaar made it more difficult for the various entities in the Public Distribution System’s supply chain to siphon off food grain?Aadhar will bring improvements to the PDS. – Ranjit Virdi
***
In March 2017, when the scars of note bandi had not yet healed, I had travelled to Bundelkhand. I found a good number of local people holding their mobile phones in hand while sitting on branches of trees on the roadsides. When I asked some locals about this unusual activity, they said that they only get network connectivity on tree tops. That’s when the real meaning of “Digital India” became vividly clear to me.
The story in urban India is not much more hopeful, given the technical glitches and authentication errors. I hold the Indian judiciary in the highest esteem, but am of the opinion that unless electricity and mobile connectivity is available in every nook and corner of India, an Aadhaar-based public delivery system cannot work. – Goutam Majumder
***
No matter what many say, India supports Aadhaar. There may be a few problems with the programme here and there, but Aadhaar has revolutionised Indian economic activity, eliminated corruption, prevented crime, saved billions in subsidies and made administration easier. About 99% of the people are for Aadhaar. – Pattabiraman Ramanathan
***
Aadhaar is not a gift from the divine, it is a man-made system and if the person on the spot wants it to work, it will. But our people take undue advantage of small inconsistencies to deny the benefits to the poor and illiterate. When corruption is so monstrous that it can devour everything, any system, even in its most perfect form, will fail in India. The first attack, thus, should be on our corrupt mentality, not on Aadhar’s defects. – PD Amarnath
***
Does the author think that they have all the facts, and the learned judges of the Supreme Court don’t? Rather than criticising the concept’s flaws, one should focus on how to improve the system. This requires courage and the will to plan and execute. – Rajesh Dwivedi
***
There should be a survey on the ground that is in village and towns, to find out if poor people are benefitting from Aadhaar or whether technical glitches, fingerprint issues, electricity and network connectivity are proving to be a problem. The government must look into this. – Sujatha Tadi
***
There is truth in this analysis but the fact is that because of a few problems, you cannot curse 90% of people. Those problem areas need to be worked on. Aadhaar is not bad, records point to just a small percentage of errors in names, addresses and the like. Now that India has achieved 100% electrification, according to the government, these areas too can be improved upon. – Manmohan Singh Narula
***
The Aadhaar card does not offer any benefits to citizens. It is a criminal waste of public money and only benefits businesses. If the government is serious about its citizens, they would have been worked out other options, such as amending the Citizenship Act. – Kannabiran Mudaliyar
***
How is Aadhaar breaching privacy? Everybody is crying about privacy breaches but nobody knows the details. The real advantage of the programme is that it can help below poverty line card holders get their full quota of rations without it being misappropriated by middle men. SIM cards were being sold at roadside shops without authentication. One voter card was used by more than three people. Aadhaar was the only way to stop this. Actually, it should be used for all purposes. In many other countries, only one ID card is used for everything. – Soubhagya Mohanty
***
Praavita’s article is biased. Society is moving at a fast pace and any progress should be welcomed. In my view, the Supreme Court’s judgement is progressive. Let the difficulties that have arises in the implementation of Aadhaar be solved by adopting new procedure and statutes. – Tapas Pal
***
This tirade is uncalled for. The Supreme Court is right in its judgement, which is for the greater good. The problem is with the supporting infrastructure of Aadhaar, which will improve with time. We should accept the fact that the old system has to make way for the new. – Somdatta
Award season
It is a pleasure to know that the UN has identified Cochin International Airport as a change-maker and has recognised the work of Prime Minister Narendra Modi (“Narendra Modi, Cochin International Airport among United Nations Champions of the Earth Awardees”). Becoming the first fully solar-powered airport in the world with a 15 MW photovoltaic power station is no joke. Modi has brought about sweeping changes and growth over the last few years and has taken our country a long way. However, this is only a milestone in Indian history. Just another thing to remind us that we’re heading towards development but still have a long way to go. – Devlina Bhattacharjee
Rafale row
Ever since Former French President Francois Hollande made his revelations on the Rafale deal, memes accusing Narendra Modi of being a thief have been doing the rounds on internet (“The Daily Fix: BJP’s response to Rafale should be transparency – instead it’s blaming Pakistan”). It is unclear whether these are an genuine expressions of anger by netizens or the Opposition trying to corner the NDA through their unofficial accounts. Before the wildfire spreads, the government should come out and clear all misconceptions, if any, on the celebrated deal between India and France. – Vishu Adhana
***
I don’t know who is advising Rahul Gandhi on his speeches, but he is demeaning himself by calling the Prime Minister a thief (“On Rafale, why has the rest of the Opposition failed to match the Congress’ fire and brimstone?”). Just as Amit Shah demeaned himself by comparing undocumented Bangladeshi migrants in India as to termites. Those who are in power or seek to come to power should speak in a dignified manner. If Gandhi thinks that people will vote for him for always criticising the prime minister, he is mistaken. People can judge for themselves how much of what the prime minister is saying is true and whether his actions are matching his words. Instead Gandhi should tell people what he wants to do to improve their lives, so that they can live with dignity and without fear of speaking out. – Kamala Devi Subrahmanyan
Coaching woes
Ravi Shastri is nowhere near Anil Kumble and Rahul Dravid, if not Sehwag (“The daggers are out: Ganguly, Sehwag hit out at Shastri after India’s series defeat in England”). Instead of going for what Kohli wanted, the management should have gone for what the team wanted. With the team we have now, home wins are not achievements. Overseas series wins would come easy for this team with a coach who has ruled overseas. I can’t think of a better man for this job than Rahul Dravid. At least, should play the role of consultant or mentor if not full-time coach. – Sujnan Herale
Selection day
I agree with Sunil Gavaskar’s views on the exclusion of Karan Nair especially after he scored a triple ton in his third test match (“‘No argument is ever going to satisfy me’: Sunil Gavaskar slams Karun Nair’s omission from India XI”). This is no mean feat. More opportunities would mean more exposure and more experience, regardless of the end result for the individual or the team. Even the great Don Bradman or Gary Sobers (two players who could easily walk into any World XI cricket team) have not achieved the distinction of scoring a triple ton within their first five test matches. I hope selectors, the captain and the coach take a more discrete and judicious approach in team selection. A horses-for-courses approach has its place but so does experimentation. – Sunil Mehta
