Aadhar, Part 3: The Critics' Take

Why are so many people so anti-Aadhar? The book, The Aadhar Effect, goes into the reasons, and offer their take on the validity (or not) of those concerns.

One concern is that Aadhar has changed from an identity project to an identification project:

“An identity project would give power to the people… An identification project empowers the state.”

Another concern is that it has morphed from a voluntary system to practically a mandatory system.

A third concern from certain social activists is, well, interesting. They worry that Aadhar is changing the process of how a government is made to take care of the poor. Earlier, the model was to push for and get a legal resolution (e.g. an entitled amount or whatever) and then use that as the basis to demand that the government pay up. But with Aadhar, everything changes to a money transfer program. Would this model gradually erode the need for legal resolutions? And if that happened, could governments just stop paying altogether? This feels too contrived a scenario to me, but sure, it could happen.

Then, of course, there’s the known issue of exclusion, of some people not getting ID’s. While I sympathize with such instances, it’s not like the old system worked better. Didn’t Rajiv Gandhi’s observe in 1985 that for every rupee the government spends, only 15 paisa reaches the intended beneficiaries?

Plus, there’s the concern about privacy. The government database system isn’t secure, argue many. That’s apart from the fear of government surveillance.

Some question the efficacy of the schemes implemented via the Aadhar model. Where is the data to prove if it works better, provides more people, and/or saves the government money compared to the old way, they ask.

In today’s world, the book points out that it’s hard to know what’s fair or well intentioned. Anything could be fake news, and everybody’s agenda is open to question. Thus, many legitimate questions don’t get answered. But, as the book says, we need the critics, even if “men of action can get frustrated with critics”. Unfortunately though:

“The fight was assuming religious shades.”

The “religions” were the critics, those who demanded that the system had to be perfect and flawless v/s those who believed the system could be fixed, that it did far more good than harm.

Regardless of the criticisms, regardless of whether they are valid or not, my guess is that Nilekani’s Lego block isn’t going back into the box.