Budgetary Allocation for Aadhaar/NPR-UIDAI in Contempt of Parliament

Both Aadhaar and NPR are security projects

3.57 crore signatures submitted to PM seeking scrapping of Aadhaar

-The Govt ignores the PSC of Finance 42nd report of Dec 2011 and demonstrates contempt for parliament.
-Increased fund allocation in Union budget 2013-14 to Aadhaar / UID by Rs 14,232 crs and other recommendations has made a mockery of the PSC of Finance report which is the considered view of parliament.
-The claims success by various pilots on themes of subsidy transfer and financial inclusion of Adhaar project are extremely suspicious and dubious.
- Minority Government's biometric data collection without statutory backing by NPR and Aadhaar violates citizens’ rights is uncalled for.
- Submission of 3.57 crores signatures of people all over the country against the UID/ Aadhaar project and which also shows the widespread opposition to the biometric profiling not only by pro-privacy activists but also by the Aam-aadmi- common women and men
- Benefits from direct transfer of subsidy recommended by Nandan Nilekani task force suspect
- Parliamentary probe required for UIDAI/RGI’s relationship with external and internal intelligence agencies

New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore: Union Budget allocation of Rs. 14,232 crore for Aadhar-UID demonstrates a contempt of Parliament as it seems to ignore the recommendations of the report of Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance on the National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill 2010. This was presented to Parliament on December 13, 2011 and questioned the legality of collection of biometric data for Aadhaar and National Population Register (NPR) without legislative mandate.

It may be recalled that while presenting the Union Budget 2009-10, Finance Minister, Pranab Mukherjee had announced the setting up of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) by the Government to “establish an online data base with identity and biometric details of Indian residence and provide enrolment and verification services across the country.” He had allocated Rs. 120 crore for this project as “a major step in improving governance with regard to delivery of public services.”

The Minister did not inform the Parliament that UIDAI “was created during 2009-10 and a modest start with an expenditure of Rs 30.92 crore was made.”Parliament has been kept in dark about how Unique Identification (UID) /Aadhaar Numbers to every resident in India started unfolding without sharing “the linkages of various welfare schemes steered by different Ministries/departments of Government of India”. Not only that the “reports of the Demographic Data Standards and Field Verification Committee and Biometrics Committee were completed” without any legislative approval.

Government has ensured that the legislative wing remains unaware about how UIDAI selected the “Managed Service Provider” for the Central Identity Data Repository (CIDR) of Aadhaar Numbers. For this a budget of Rs 1900 crores was allocated in the Union Budget 2010-11 by the Finance Minister. It is admitted that “CIDR will be handed over to the Managed Service Provider (MSP) on a long term contract basis.” The UIDA was given Rs 3,000 crore for fiscal 2011-2012. Its details are missing from the public domain. The shifting national identities of MSP and their relationship with external and internal intelligence agencies merit a parliamentary probe.

Call to action for the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation

We, the undersigned organizations, are deeply concerned that the 6th World Water Forum plans to adopt a Ministerial Declaration that fails to commit States to the realization of the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation. The 6th World Water forum is held under the slogan “It’s time for solutions and commitments.”

Yet the draft Ministerial Declaration falls short of commitments that virtually all UN Member States have already made. Instead of reaffirming the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation as authoritatively recognized by the United Nations General Assembly, the Human Rights Council and the World Health Assembly (resolutions A/RES/64/292, A/HRC/RES/15/9, A/HRC/RES/16/2, A/HRC/RES/18/1 and WHA 64/24) and committing States to the realization of this fundamental human right, the draft Ministerial Declaration of the 6th World Water Forum in its current form only commits signatories to implement “human rights obligations relating to access to safe and clean drinking water and sanitation”.

This language leaves open the issue of whether access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right. The language thereby leaves room for States to individually determine whether their human rights obligations require them to realize the right to safe drinking water and sanitation for all. The Ministerial Declaration of the 6th World Water Forum will not be legally binding; nor will it carry the political and moral authority of a United Nations resolution adopted in accordance with transparent, participatory and democratic United Nations rules and procedures. However, a Ministerial Declaration containing retrogressive language on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation would still set a negative precedent, which a small number of States will use to try to undermine progress on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation at the United Nations level and in other international processes.

New Book: REMUNICIPALISATION: Putting Water Back in Public Hands‏

New book uncovers private failures leading cities to take back control of water worldwide
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), the Municipal Services Project (MSP) and the Transnational Institute (TNI) are launching the groundbreaking study Remunicipalisation: Putting Water Back in Public Hands on Thursday, March 15 in Marseille, France.

The book explores the growing ?remunicipalisation? trend in the water sector that largely stems from the adverse effects of poor private water services in cities around the globe. Unequal access for the poor, unkept investment promises, environmental hazards, and scandalous profit margins are prompting municipalities to act to guarantee this essential service. Case studies analyse the transition from private to public water provision in Buenos Aires, Dar es Salaam, Hamilton and Paris as well as Malaysia?s national experiment.

?This long-awaited study highlights the successes and ongoing challenges of remunicipalisation, and shows that public water providers can outperform private companies,? says David McDonald, co-director of the MSP, a research project on alternatives to privatisation. ?We hope it can help deconstruct a deeply entrenched neoliberal ideology that puts profits before people.?

In the South, privatised water services continue to be promoted as a solution to increased investment needs in water services by international financial institutions. But evidence from the case studies shows that privatisation has come at a high social cost and has not resolved operational and infrastructural problems, with companies reaping high profits while governments shoulder substantial risks without democratic checks.

Private provision has also failed citizens in the North. ?The case of Paris shows how expensive, opaque and short-sighted private water management usually is,? says Martin Pigeon of Brussels-based CEO. ?Two years into remunicipalisation, public managers have made major savings and they run the system more transparently with a long-term vision. This victory is all the more important as dozens of water concession contracts are up for renewal in 2012 in France alone, raising hopes for nation-wide change. At the EU level, lessons from this experience advocate strongly against the austerity drive to force Greece, Portugal and Italy to privatise their water.?

According to TNI expert Satoko Kishimoto, ?water struggles provide a real opportunity for citizens not only to end privatisation but to help shape public water companies that are democratic and responsive to their needs. We hope this book can help draw lessons from these experiences to guide future action in favour of public services.?

Co-editors Martin Pigeon, David McDonald and Satoko Kishimoto will present research findings during an Alternative World Water Forum workshop convened by the MSP.

*Launch Event* ? Thursday, March 15 from 15h30 to 18h Docks des Suds, Cabaret Rouge 1, Marseille, France Workshop information and full list of speakers available at bit.ly/zOMDUb

Challenging The World Water Forum To Protect Water From Corporate Control

Statement by Shayda Naficy, Senior Organizer, Challenge Corporate Control of our Water
BOSTON--(ENEWSPF)--March 12 - This week, the World Water Forum (WWF) will convene representatives of the water industry, other major corporations and government officials in Marseilles to shape international water policy such that it to prioritizes for-profit models of water delivery, and profit-oriented allocation of the world’s most essential resource. While water for domestic purposes is a recognized human right, today nearly 900 million people lack consistent, safe access. Corporate control and management has proven a failure in addressing this tragic shortfall, instead diverting the investment dollars and political will required to reverse this global crisis.

20 years of water privatization has demonstrated time and again that water corporations do not serve those unable to afford water nor invest in the infrastructure maintenance and expansion  critical for sustainable delivery of water. Corporate control of water has resulted in labor force downsizing, higher prices and shutoffs for poor and marginalized communities, reduced government capacity and oversight, decreased ability of water users to participate in and influence decision making, diluted legal recourse and information, neglect of long-term infrastructure and system expansion, as well as the shifting of the political and cultural values around water so as to grant access to users according to their ability to pay not their basic human right to the resource. Extracting corporate profits drains the resources required for reinvestment, with damaging consequences for communities, the environment and democracy itself.

As the largest external source of financing for water in developing countries, the World Bank has served as a critical ally for the water industry in the push to privatize. With mounting evidence of the flaws of the private model, governments and civil society alike have grown increasingly resistant to turn water systems over to corporate control. The Bank’s response has been to bypass governments altogether: today, about a quarter of the Bank’s funding goes directly to the private sector, including equity (stock ownership) investments in transnational water corporations. Investing directly in corporate water providers precludes public accountability and democratic oversight; it also gives the Bank itself a direct financial stake in the ability of corporations like Veolia to profit off of water delivery.

IISc students boycott UID, don’t want Big Brother to keep watch‏

Nandan Nilekani may be Bangalore’s blue-eyed boy making waves at the national level with his Unique Identification Number (UID), but there’s one part of the city that’s not impressed: A section of students and faculty of Indian Institute of Science (IISc). While many Bangaloreans have started enrolling for UID, the students are in boycott mode and say they will never do so.

Professor Shiv Sethi, astrophysics department, Raman Research Institute, said, “They (the authorities) have moved faster than us by starting the enrolment. It was during the discussion phase that we tried to impress upon them the loopholes of UID. Now that they have started the enrolment, it’s our turn to protest. We will meet and discuss with other like-minded people.”

IIScians say they don’t want to be under surveillance and that they are not comfortable with giving away their personal details since studies have proved how unsafe electronic data can be. The programme has been scrapped in the UK, they said. In fact, when Nilekani visited IISc a few months back to deliver a lecture, the anti-UID group protested with placards and banners that read, ‘Beware, Big Brother is watching you’ and ‘Secure electronic archive is a myth’.

And now, apart from not signing up, some students are even considering burning copies of UID forms, a la team Anna burning copies of the draft Lokpal bill. Prathamesh, a scholar, said: “UID is not going to solve problems of leakages. The government should universalise the PDS system to control misuse of subsidised foodgrain that find their way to restaurants. The project is fraught with loopholes and doesn’t have statutory backing. I will burn copies of the forms.”

Prathamesh added that the UID project was the brainwave of software companies who do not have a regular stream of revenue. Even IISc alumni are putting up a fight. One of them who participated in the protest said, “I will not register. The programme does not have statutory backing. It is still in parliament. First, they said it was voluntary. Now, they are trying to link it to banks, LPG connections and other utilities.”

Sethi added, “A few people have approached the court. We will decide the next course of action.” There are others who have doubts. Consumer activist Chandrasekhar of Malle-swaram feels that he needs to clarify all his doubts before enrolling. “I spoke with the officials. They told me it was voluntary. But now, it looks like they are linking it with other utilities.” Nishant Shah, director, research, Centre for Internet Society, said, “We need to check for three issues: data retention, data protection and data privacy. Only after these issues are resolved can we have a UID for every citizen.” (Sameer Ranjan Bakshi)

The Supreme Court's verdict on ILRP and concerns for Bangladesh‏

Dear Prof. Mohammed Khalequzzaman,

I have seen your comments on the subject of the river-linking project and the Supreme Court's recent oorder on it in Waterwatch Digest No. 1856. You have said that I have not mentioned Bangladesh's concerns in my article in The Hindu of 2 March 2012.  I have in fact not gone into any of the impacts and consequences of the Project in any detail. The focus of the article was on the propriety of the judiciary issuing an order to the executive government to implement a project. That focus is clear from the title of the article ('With All Due Respect, My Lords').

However, the article does forcefully make the point that the project is very controversial; that there are divergent views on it; and that the Supreme Court has relied on one report and ignored the vast literature on the subject. When a proper examination of the merits of the project is undertaken, all aspects, including the concerns expressed by Nepal and Bangladesh, will need to be gone into.

I may add that I was the first person to criticise the project strongly when it was announced in 2002 by the NDA Government, and my very first article mentioned the Bangladesh angle, even before any comment from Bangladesh. I was widely quoted in Bangladesh at that time and that made me very unpopular with the Government of India.

Incidentally, you say: "The people of Bangladesh have expressed their disappointment in various news media over the proposed Tipaimukh dam, lack of Teesta water sharing treaty, and the failure to implement the Ganges Treaty over the last 15 years." I agree that it was very unfortunate that a treaty on the Teesta was not signed when the Indian PM visited Bangladesh, and I can understand the disappointment in Bangladesh over this. As a matter of fact, there was dismay in this country too. Many commentators here criticised that failure. However, I cannot understand your reference to "the failure to implement the Ganges Treaty".

So far as I know, water-sharing under that Treaty is proceeding and there is a joint Indian-Bangladeshi team sitting at Farakka to monitor this. Khaleda Zia, who had been critical of the Treaty when it was signed, left it alone when she came to power. At one stage, a Minister in the BNP Government expressed satisfaction with its working. When the Treaty completed 5 years, Bangladesh did not ask for a review. Against that background, it is strange that you casually refer to 'non-implementation of the Treaty' as if it is a well-established fact.

If indeed it has not been implemented for 15 years, what were the Bangldeshi officials in the joint team at Farakka doing? Did they record official protests? Was the issue taken up in the Joint Rivers Commission? Did Khaleda Zia or Sheikh Hasina take up the matter formally with the Government of India? Did the Bangladesh Government ask for a review of the working of the Treaty? If in fact the Ganges Treaty has been a failure, did that failure figure in the talks during the recent visit of the Indian Prime Minister? If so, why were there no media reports to that effect? And if that Treaty has not been implemented, why is Bangladesh interested in signing a treaty on the Teesta?

I may add that I was in Dhaka in November 2010 for a conference and India-Bangladesh issues came up in one of the sessions (the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh was present and spoke), but no one referred to the non-impementation of the Ganges Treaty.

Despite all this, if you are convinced that the Ganges Treaty has not been implemented, you must ask the Government of Bangladesh to take up the matter formally with the Government of India.

Best Wishes. Ramaswamy R Iyer, New Delhi, E-Mail: rriyer@airtelmail.in, ramaswamy.iyer@gmail.com

national media merely Delhi-Noida-Gurgaon media‏

Wanted more regionalization of national media

An obliging media lent a helping hand by mounting a high-decibel television campaign, that made it seem as if a Rahul wave would blow everyone away. As it became clear on Tuesday, the aandhi was felt only in television newsrooms, says T S SUDHIR

On March 5, during the election debate on TV, BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad asked NDTV's Barkha Dutt to introspect on the amount of TV time that all media, her channel included, had given to Rahul Gandhi, compared to the pittance other parties got.

On the afternoon of March 6, by which time it was amply clear that Samajwadi Party was coming to power, SP's Shahid Siddiqui admonished CNN-IBN's Rajdeep Sardesai, telling him that it is strange that even when it is evident the Congress is down in the dumps, the channel was devoting 70 per cent of the discussion to that party.

The two comments in a nutshell tell the story of the media coverage of the Uttar Pradesh elections. Living south of the Vindhyas and only following the election campaign on TV, one would have thought Rahul Gandhi was running away with the election. The media kept their cameras focused on the `family that campaigns together, stays together' theme, airing several of Rahul and Priyanka's speeches live. Damaadji's foray into his Sasural got its fair bit of attention too till Robert's naked political ambitions forced the Congress High command's hand to get him out of Amethi.

In contrast, Mayawati, UP's reigning queen got next-to-nothing national media coverage. Journalist friends in Lucknow said that's because she does not allow any access and treats the media with utter disdain. That translated into a virtual blacking out of the BSP's presence in the electoral arena, barring a covered elephant here and a covered Mayawati there. Compare this with Tamilnadu where an equally imperious Jayalalithaa keeps the media at bay, choosing when to talk and when not to talk, mostly the latter. But that has never meant that the AIADMK's place in Tamilnadu's electoral arena does not get due space.

Looking back, if it was not for Akhilesh Yadav, who was accessible and `connected' to the contingent of young Delhi media crowd, the SP too would have been a footnote in UP's election battle. One has to concede Mulayam Singh Yadav does not make for great television, his soundbites barely clear. The other Yadavs in SP are only extensions of the family tree and none of them interest the national media. No sooner was Akhilesh's ability to articulate was discovered, it became a Rahul vs Akhilesh battle, a clash of personalities, with Mayawati pushed to the sidelines.

The fact that the media chose to virtually reduce the election to this uni-dimensional duel, was its biggest failure in UP Election 2012. Because as the results show, nothing could be farther from the truth.

And lest we forget, there was yet another party in the fray - the BJP - that had ruled UP in the 90s, through one of its most turbulent phases, the Babri Masjid demolition. Its performance finally was just marginally better than the Congress but in terms of the media narrative, it was as if the BJP had been dismissed as a no-hope party at the start line itself, and the presence of its regular spokespersons in its Delhi studios, the only consolation. 

This kind of media coverage for one of the most important elections in recent times, to my mind, is dangerous. The national media, sitting in Delhi, decides the pecking order. From a lay viewer's point of view, it was as if the media was running for Rahul Gandhi, who was clearly carrying a handicap (read Congress organisational weakness). An obliging media lent a helping hand by mounting a high-decibel television campaign, that made it seem as if a Rahul wave would blow everyone away. As it became clear on Tuesday, the aandhi was felt only in television newsrooms.

UP Election 2012 is also symptomatic of the way national media has redefined itself in the last couple of years. Today news that you see is no longer what's happening in a Tamilnadu, a Karnataka, an Orissa or Gujarat. It is the Delhi view of a Bangalore or a Chennai and more importantly, the Delhi identification of personalities from any of these states, that gets them into the rundown. A development surrounding a Kanimozhi will be covered because Delhi `knows' her. Stalin or Vijaykanth will not get that privilege. The articulate face from Orissa Jay Panda would be covered, but Kerala CM Oommen Chandy perhaps wouldn't.

The other issue is the over dominance by the Delhi voices on anything and everything under the sun. Tune into any news channel between 8 and 11 pm, any day, and you will find the usual gallery of suspects on air, offering the same fare. It is like a sometimes cosy, sometimes noisy living room conversation broadcast live every evening.

Issues are no longer relevant, unless they have a Delhi dateline. What you find today is news where a Hyderabad, a Bhopal and a Patna merely reacts to what is happening in Delhi. Dr Pramod Kumar, one of the panellists on CNN-IBN made a very pertinent point in the context of national parties not encouraging regional satraps. He said,``while regional leaders are nationalising themselves, national parties are not going regional.''

The same is true for national media. By reducing the nation to Delhi-Noida-Gurgaon, national media has become just another regional media. And as long as it continues to believe that `India is Delhi, Delhi is India', it will keep shooting itself in the foot.