Opposition to Aadhar in India has a lot of similarities to the voices that opposed the SSN in the US back in the 1930s.
These arguments back then as it is now, lack logical prudence and clarity.
What is the American Case?
The US enacted the landmark “Social Security Act” in 1935, giving birth to the Social Security Number (SSN), which was highly controversial then.
Many congressmen vociferously opposed the bill as they feared that people will be reduced to mere numbers and the integrity of institutions would be ruined.
But over the years Social Security and its counterpart, Medicare, have become the only safety nets for a majority of America’s elderly.
SSN has arguably been overused for purposes that it was not intended for, and there have also been many instances of leakage of information linked to it.
Nonetheless it continues to be the backbone of citizen interactions with the state as there is no better alternative.
How does it compare with India’s Aadhar?
The arguments being made against Aadhar seem to be on the same lines on which SSN was opposed – the right of people to be left alone.
The fear-mongering has been about a possible totalitarian regime with a giant electronic mesh that would aid a complete surveillance state.
Political - The most important difference is that opposition to SSN was rooted in the opposition to Social Security programs by right-wing capitalists.
In stark contrast, the movement against Aadhaar is led by a small group of Left-leaning activists, who usually advocate more government in people’s lives.
Understandably, they do not sound credible when they invoke the bogey of Big Brother, who to most poor Indians is the benevolent state that brings succour.
While they have been the loudest voices against mismanagement of welfare schemes in the past, they now suggest that Aadhar won’t make things better.
Biometrics - Another crucial difference between the SSN and Aadhaar is that the latter employs biometrics, which unlike other data can’t be changed.
While this is indeed a privacy challenge, the Supreme Court justices observed recently, that there are already multiple more damaging databases.
Notably, social media giants, mobile operators, and even our own voter lists carry damaging personal information over which we have no control.
Besides, it is to be noted that none of the Aadhaar data breaches that have been reported thus far involves fingerprints or iris scans.
So, the argument that biometrics somehow make a more compelling case against Aadhaar simply does not hold water.
Contrarily, considering our large population and our history of systemic fraud in every past ID programme, it is indeed the biometrics that brings credibility.
How does the future look?
Having realised the potential Aadhar, the present union government seems determined and more internally united in its push for the program.
UIDAI has also shown considerable seriousness to privacy protection by adding more layers of security such as the virtual Aadhar initiative.
It has also been an active part in crafting a national data protection law, all of which off-course wouldn’t suffice vociferous irrational opponents.
As the Supreme Court is hearing arguments from both sides currently, it is hoped that it would arrive at a prudent conclusion that balances all concerns.
Undoing Aadhar would be high retrograde and a blow to better administrative constructivism on a larger scale.
