To
Shri Arun
Jaitley
Union Minister
of Finance, Corporate Affairs, Defence
Government of
India
New Delhi
Date: May 31,
2014
Subject- Ref:
Biometric Aadhaar linked Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) for transfer of
sovereign function of tax collection to a private firm
Sir,
Let me congratulate on
you on taking charge of the ministries of finance, corporate affairs and defence.
I submit that as
finance minister you are inheriting the legacy of Shri James Wilson, a fee
trade activist who became British India's first finance minister (called
finance member then) who introduced Income Tax in India in 1860 to overcome the
losses on account of the ‘Military Mutiny’ of 1857 by Indian revolutionary
soldiers and after British Government realized that it cannot govern India
indirectly through the fiction of the East India Company.
I wish to draw your
attention towards your article “My Call Detail Records and A Citizen’s Right to
Privacy” as the Leader of Opposition, Rajya Sabha which was published in Urdu,
Gujarati, Hindi and English.
I submit that referring
to the illegitimate advances of certain agencies trying to obtain your call records,
you wrote, “This incident throws up another legitimate fear. We are now
entering the era of the Adhaar number. The Government has recently made the
existence of the Adhaar number as a condition precedent for undertaking several
activities; from registering marriages to execution of property documents. Will
those who encroach upon the affairs of others be able to get access to bank
accounts and other important details by breaking into the system? If this ever
becomes possible the consequences would be far messier.”
Your reading about the
adverse implications of the disease called biometric identification syndrome
spread by automatic identification and intelligence companies through likes of
Shri Nandan Nilekani is quite accurate.
I submit that your comprehension
is in sync with former intelligence contractor, Shri Edward Snowden’s
disclosures. General Keith Alexander, as director of USA’s National Security
Agency (NSA) had instructed information gathering saying, "sniff it all,
know it all, collect it all, process it all and exploit it all”. This came to
light when Russia Today made available some crucial pieces of information which
was edited out NBC News broadcasted interview of Shri Snowden on the night of
May 28, 2014. Shri Snowden observed, “The problem with mass surveillance is
that we’re piling more hay on a haystack we already don’t understand.” This is
what has been attempted by Shri Nilekani and people like Shri Sam Pitroda
through Public Information Infrastructure and Innovations (PIII) who headed it
in the rank of a cabinet minister.
It must be noted that
by Notification No. A-43011/02/2009-Adm.1 (Vol II) dated 02.07.2009 appointment
of Shri Nilekani as Chairperson of UIDAI in the rank and status of a Cabinet
Minister was approved for an initial tenure 5 years. On March 5, 2014, Lok
Sabha election dates were announced. On 09.03.2014, Shri Nilekani officially
joined Indian National Congress without resigning from the post of Chairman,
UIDAI. He wrote a letter to the Prime Minister relinquishing the post of
Chairman, UIDAI vide ref.no. Chairman / 34/2013-UIDAI on 13.03.2014 but his
resignation as accepted on 18.03.2014 by the ‘competent authority’ in Planning
Commission, Government of India vide Notification no. F.6 [2098]/2009-Adm.I,
with retrospective effect from March 13, 2014.
I submit that Shri
Nilekani has been caught red handed in violation of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules 1964. Under Rule 5 of the Rules regarding “Taking part in
politics and elections” reads: “No Government servant shall be a member of, or
be otherwise associated with, any political party or any organisation which
takes part in politics nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or
assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity.” While
implicitly and informally Shri Nilekani functioned as a member of the Indian
National Congress from July 2, 2009 but between March 9, 2014 and March 18,
2014, he functioned totally illegally and illegitimately by throwing all norms
to the dustbin with impunity so far.
I wish to submit how
biometric aadhhar is linked to Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN). It may be
noted that the sovereign function of the tax administration is being
transferred to Goods and Services Tax Network, a private body. This approach
appears to have no parallel anywhere in the world.
I submit that a New
Indian Express story ‘Aadhar cut down to size, data mining projects raise
concerns’ (Sept 29, 2013) underlined how NIUs like GSTN are linked to biometric
UID/aadhaar number. Supreme Court’s verdict on the legitimacy, legality and
constitutionality of this identifier is likely to impact NIUs as well.
I submit that no
taxation without political representation was the battle cry of the American
Revolution. The issue is how GST can be imposed when there is no political
representation in the GSTN. Chief Ministers of all non-Congress States and all
the non-Congress parties be vigilant against the subversion of hard earned
rights of true political representation in matters of taxation. Amidst
opposition from Chief Ministers and officials from the Central Board of Excise
and Customs (CBEC), GSTN is meant for controlling all new indirect tax data
from the Centre and states.
It is noteworthy that
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Dr J Jayalalithaa had sent a letter dated August 18,
2011 to non-Congress Chief Ministers urging them to stridently oppose the
introduction of a Goods and Services Tax (GST). She argued that it would affect
the fiscal autonomy of States. In the light of the proposal for GSTN, Dr
Jayalalithaa’s opposition has been proven right because as per the plan, entire
individual data—direct and indirect taxes—including registration, return and
payment by taxpayers will be in custody of a NIU. It is a case of handing over
of public data to a private entity. It is akin to day light robbery.
I submit that your
predecessors have at the Finance Ministry have compelled the CBEC and Central
Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to sign MoU for the sharing of data. This is to
ensure that GSTN will be able to access and process the entire tax data-both
direct and indirect taxes. It has asked the CBEC to hand over the processing of
data for tax surveillance to GSTN. This has been done without any security or
privacy safeguards.
I submit that such
initiatives will lead to handing over the control over indirect and direct tax
data to GSTN for tax profiling and surveillance without any legislation passed
by Parliament, the personal sensitive information like biometric data is being
handed over to UIDAI and its partner companies like Accenture from USA and
Safran from France. This undermines citizens’ sovereignty, states’ autonomy and
national security for good.
I submit that in April
2013, a number of news reports announced that the Government has ‘decided to
set up a special purpose vehicle to provide information technology support to
various stakeholders under the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST)’. The
Goods and Services Tax is a value-added tax that is expected to replace all
indirect taxes on goods and services imposed by the Centre and Indian states.
The special purpose vehicle has been named the Goods and Services Tax Network
(GSTN), is seen as an important step in ushering in a little understood but
much touted reform, because it will make it possible to bring together taxation
data from the Centre and states that was so far processed separately. The GSTN
is already in place as a private limited company despite strong opposition by
senior officials of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC), and Shri
Naveen Kumar, former chief secretary of Bihar, has been appointed chairman.
This body will control all new indirect tax data from the Centre and states and
will have access to past data as well. The charges it will impose for
processing this data will be the revenue that sustains its operations.
I submit that since the
Finance Ministry headed by your predecessors directed the CBEC and Central
Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to sign MoU for the sharing of data, Goods and
Services Tax Network will be able to access and process the entire tax data of
the country, both of direct and indirect taxes. Obviously, this should have
been a matter for far more public debate than it has evoked, but the actual
process of setting up Goods and Services Tax Network is far more alarming than
this broad outline. Since it will have to be in place before the Goods and
Services Tax is rolled out, the Finance Ministry has asked the CBEC to hand
over the processing of data for tax surveillance to Goods and Services Tax
Network, which would ensure it a revenue stream as soon as it takes over these
functions.
As a result, Goods and
Services Tax Network body will be the sole information hub for linking and
processing all of India’s tax data, something that has never been attempted by
the Government, leave alone a private entity. This is being done in the absence
of any security or privacy provisions in place.
I submit that in
January 2011, the Technology Advisory Group for Unique Projects (TAGUP) headed
by Shri Nilekani recommended the setting up of five infotech intensive
financial projects—for the Income Tax Department, National Pension Scheme,
Reserve Bank of India, and for tracking government expenditure and Goods and
Services Tax Network for the Goods and Services Tax. A similar structure for
each of the five was proposed, a not-for-profit Section 25 company, with a
self-sustaining revenue model, where the Government’s holding would be
restricted to 49 per cent and private institutional holding set at 51 per cent.
I submit that a room at
the end of a long corridor in Hotel Janpath, New Delhi in serves as GSTN’s
office premises. Its Chairman Naveen Kumar has reportedly said, “We are
basically an IT company. We will build infrastructure, operate and maintain it.
This sector requires very high salaries and we can hire the best people from
the sector. Then there is the question of the number of rules and regulations
in government. Financial management norms have to be observed. These are quite
time consuming. Doing anything takes time. We need to make records, observe
rules, follow procedures, follow tendering methods, undergo vetting by the CAG,
CVC and be under the CIC. Here we are not bound by rules, we can work faster, be
more efficient.”
Having gone through
relevant documents, I submit that the not-for-profit structure of GSTN means
that before the company can sustain itself by levying user fees, it needs funds
to hire the staff. Private investors—Housing Development Finance Corp Ltd, HDFC
Bank Ltd, LIC Housing Finance Ltd, ICICI Bank Ltd and NSE Strategic Investment
Corp Ltd—have no incentive to provide the necessary money. Therefore, GSTN has
been set up on equity of just Rs 10 crore and the Government has provided it a
one-time grant of Rs 315 crore. In effect, the government has funded a start-up
that it does not even have majority control of.
I submit that despite
the issue of money required, since GSTN is already in place as a
self-sustaining body, it needs sources of revenue other than those that would
be eventually generated from receiving and processing Goods and Services Tax
data. This is unfolding as a result of the recommendations of the Empowered
Group on IT Infrastructure for Goods and Services Tax headed by Shri Nilekani.
I submit that in
November 2011, when the CBEC was brought fully into the picture, Ms Sheila
Sangwan, then Member had summarised the problems with the Empowered Group’s
proposals: ‘…a meeting was held wherein ‘There was unanimity amongst the
officers present that the sovereign function to be performed by the tax
administration should be kept out of the purview of the GST’ and GSTN, a
private body. Ms Sangwan had pointed out that much the same could be done
through a government-controlled body that would outsource computing
requirements but would not lose control over the data. This has the advantage
of retaining the security and privacy safeguards and legal controls that
already exist for such data.
I submit that these
apprehensions of senior officers of the CBEC have been set aside. In fact
security at GSTN due to private control is worrisome. It is clear that tax
profiling and surveillance has been handed over to GSTN without any legal
mandate, the way biometric aadhaar unfolded.
I submit that this
signals movement towards a regime where the country’s entire tax data will be
accessible through a body which will be in no position to guarantee security
standards.
I submit that likes of
Shri Nilekani have been allowed to distort language and commit linguistic
corruption to take away the sovereign function of tax collection from the
Government and hand it over to National Information Utilities (NIUs) which is
purported to be a private company with public purpose and which has profit
making as motive but not profit maximizing.
I submit that in his
book which was first published in 2008, Shri Nilekani is deeply worried because
“zeroing in on a definite identity for each citizen particularly difficult,
since each government department works as a different turf and with different
groups of people.” He argues that “Our databases are in these disconnected
silos” and states that “NIUs would be databases that amass information…” which
will connect all these “disconnected silos”.
I submit that in this
unprecedented move country’s most sensitive financial data -entire tax data of
Indians has been turned over to a private firm, set up as a special purpose
vehicle (SPV) named GSTN, an IT company on the recommendations of Shri Nilekani
headed panel. GSTN is supposed to provide information technology support under
the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST). There is no provision for data
security in it.
As you are aware GST is
a value-added tax which is expected to replace all indirect taxes on goods and
services imposed by the Centre and Indian states. GST will replace the State
VAT, Central Excise, Service Tax and a few other indirect taxes will be a
broad-based, single, comprehensive tax levied on goods and services. It will be
levied at every stage of the production-distribution chain by giving the
benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) of the tax remitted at previous stages. GST
is based on a destination-based taxation system, where tax is levied on final
consumption. It is expected to broaden the tax base, foster a common market
across the country, reduce compliance costs, and promote exports. The GST will
be a dual tax with levy by both Central and State tax administrations on the
same base. The GST demands a well-designed and robust IT system for realizing
its potential in reforming indirect taxation in India. The IT system for GST
would be a unique project, which will integrate the Central and State tax
administration.
I submit that while
presenting the Union Budget in 2011-12, the then Union Finance Minister Pranab
Mukherjee informed the Lok Sabha that Technology Advisory Group for Unique
Projects (TAGUP) headed by Shri Nilekani, Chairman, Unique Identification
Authority of India (UIDAI) which submitted its report dated January 31, 2011
and its recommendations have been accepted in principle. Other members of the
TAG UP included Shri C. B. Bhave Chairman, SEBIR, Shri Chandrasekhar,
Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, Shri Dhirendra Swarup, Former
Chairman, PFRDAS, Shri S. Khan Former Member, CBDTP. Shri R. V. Ramanan Former
Member, CBEC and Dr. Nachiket Mor Chairman, IFMR Trust.
This was a follow up
what the Union Finance Minister had said in his Budget Speech of 2010–2011 with
regard to the setting up of TAG UP. Para 104 of the Budget speech reads:
“An effective tax administration
and financial governance system calls for creation of IT projects which are
reliable, secure and efficient. IT projects like Tax Information Network, New
Pension Scheme, National Treasury Management Agency, Expenditure Information
Network, Goods and Service Tax, are in different stages of roll out. To look
into various technological and systemic issues, I propose to set up a
Technology Advisory Group for Unique Projects under the Chairmanship of Shri
Nandan Nilekani.”
The TAGUP report
states, “In recent years, Government functioning in general and specific
projects in particular have come to involve complex Information Technology (IT)
system development. Five projects stand out:
1. Goods and Services Tax (GST)
2. Tax Information Network (TIN)
3. Expenditure Information Network (EIN)
4. National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA)
5. New Pension System (NPS)”
It claims, “These five
projects alone have immense transformative power and can change India’s growth
trajectory.” The report reads: “The Group recommends that a class of
institutions called National Information Utilities (NIU) may be put in place to
handle all aspects of IT systems for such complex projects.” It further states,
“As conceived by the Group, NIUs would be private companies with a public
purpose: profit-making, but not profit maximizing.”
I wish to reiterate
that NIU is manifestly an exercise in linguistic corruption with the aim of
‘building a coalition for change’.
TAGUP report claims
that this concept is not new. It cites comparable examples like National
Securities Depository Limited (NSDL), National Payments Corporation of India
(NPCI) and entre for Railway Information Systems (CRIS). The report underlines
that “The UIDAI published early on, the UIDAI Strategy Overview that described
the strategic vision, from which many aspects of implementation have been
derived.”
The TAG UP report
reveals, “GSTN is an NIU that is being set up to serve multiple levels of
Governments (Central and State) in GST”. It also states that “The IT Strategy
for GST was defined and accepted within Government even before the NIU was
selected.” It is noteworthy that IT Strategy for GST was also defined by Shri
Nilekani.
I submit that in
November 2011, Ms Sheila Sangwan, Member (Budget and Computerisation), had
summarised the problems with the GSTN related proposals: ‘…a meeting was held
on 14/15 November 2011 in the Chairman’s office (Shri S K Goel) to discuss the
structure and functions of the proposed GSTN… Dr Nandan Nilekani has mentioned
as minuted that there is need to go in for the SPV even without GST being
introduced. ..There was unanimity amongst the officers present that the
sovereign function to be performed by the tax administration should be kept out
of the purview of the GST.’ It was noted that ‘Across the tax administration in
the world, the privacy of taxpayer data is accorded utmost priority and it is
the practice to house this data in Government hands…’ So far Chairman of CBEC
has not addressed the essential question of who would be the repository of the
data.
I submit that it was
quite strange that Chairman of CBEC wrote that, ‘With regard to the concern of
IT Security, it is not connected to the ownership of the management—Government
or non-Government. In fact, the level of security is dependent upon the
standards, safeguards and control processes that are put in place by the
management. The GSTN could be asked to build necessary safeguards for ensuring
the security and privacy aspects…With regard to the legislative route to set up
SPV as Government entity, it is in complete contrast to the decisions taken in
the past and it would jeopardize the consensus achieved so far and bring the
discussions back to square one.’
The question is why is
CBEC made to hurry to comply with the whims and fancies of Shri Nilekani and
his coalition partners given the fact that Nilekani has never taken oath of
office and secrecy?
I submit that Shri
Naveen Kumar, the head of GSTN when was asked about control of the data said,
“We will start from scratch with our own servers and beginning with a list of
dealers we will start building a database of transactions on our system. For
this, we do not need additional data from the Customs or any other department.”
It is quite evident that servers of GSTN, a private company will be stored in a
Grid of sort.
I submit that as
Finance Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee announced that India has “voluntarily
sought a full-fledged Financial Sector Assessment Programme” from International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in January, 2011. This is similar to the
voluntariness displayed in the drafting of Sixth Plan (1980-1985) after secret
negotiations with the Bank.
I wish to draw your
attention towards a chapter ‘Extended and Specialized Lending,’ in Silent
Revolution The International Monetary Fund 1979–1989 by James M. Boughton
published by IMF in October 2001, it is
revealed that Congress Prime Minister Indira Gandhi “gave the go-ahead
to enter into secret negotiations” with IMF, following which on November 25,
1980, Shri R.N. Malhotra, Secretary, Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance
“visited the Managing Director at the Fund to signal his country’s interest in
obtaining a credit arrangement under the Extended Fund Facility (EFF) that
offered the option of longer-term credits. The first negotiating mission went
to New Delhi in January 1981, led by Tun Thin, Director of the Asian
Department. The then Finance Minister, Shri R. Venkataraman, met with IMF’s
Managing Director in Washington and subsequently signed and submitted the
Letter of Intent on September 28, 1981. Following the IMF’s approval for EFF,
Indian National Congress led government faced massive criticism for subjecting
itself to IMF’s conditionality.
I submit that in an
exercise of sophistry, this Congress led government argued that “the EFF
arrangement did not impose conditionality at all, because it was fully
consistent with the policies that were already incorporated in the Sixth
Five-Year Plan” and after having internalized the conditionality imposed by
IMF, Mrs Indira Gandhi informed the Parliament that “the arrangement does not
force us to borrow, nor shall we borrow unless it is for the national interest.
There is absolutely no question of our accepting any programme which is incompatible
with our policy, declared and accepted by Parliament. It is inconceivable that
anybody should think that we would accept assistance from any external agency
which dictates terms which are not in consonance with such policies.” This IMF
publication unequivocally establishes that Mrs Indira Gandhi lied to the
Parliament and misled the nation.
I submit that GSTN is
being created with an ulterior motive to bring it under the financial sector
surveillance program of the IMF, World Bank Group in continuation of the
policies pursued since the days of Mrs Indira Gandhi. These policies have made
India servile to the dictates of the Bank. GSTN helps the World Bank Group to
make deeper inroads and erode the financial sovereignty of the country in
complicity with the ministers of the Congress party. The new government must reverse this trend
in national interest.
I submit that Foreign
Policy magazine of the Washington Post Company listed Shri Nilekani, apparently
a protégé of Shri Mukherjee as one of the Top 100 Global Thinkers in 2010. This
was prior to disclosures about invasion of privacy by intelligence agencies of
USA and UK by monitoring emails, web searches, and telephone records. And the
disclosures by Wikileaks about the keen interest of US administration in the
aadhaar project. It appears that Shri Nilekani undertook their task by
collating biometric data of India. It is admitted his well wishers like the
President of World Bank have volunteered his services to other developing
countries as well. This was done in April 2013 at World Bank in Washington.
I submit that in
October 2012, in an interview with McKinsey & Company, Shri Nilekani said,
“Our goal, our vision, is by 2014 to have at least half a billion people on the
system, which will make it one of the world’s largest online ID infrastructures.
So that’s one metric of success. The second is we’d like to see two or three
major applications that use this ID infrastructure. One of them is electronic
benefit transfer, where governments will pay pensions, scholarships, or
whatever entitlements by cash. And the third is [that] the mobile industry will
use [the ID infrastructure] for verification”.
He added, “In the US,
to me, the two big examples are the Internet, which was originally conceived as
a defense project, and GPS. Again, it was a defense project. Both these things,
though they began as [part of] a government defense infrastructure, today are the
basis for huge innovation.” Shri Nilekani was/is aware that the substratum of
the “world’s largest online ID infrastructures” is Internet which is in total
control of US Government and US companies.
Let me inform
you that in reply to the RTI application for copies of contracts with foreign companies,
UIDAI at last agreed to share the because "contractual obligation in
respect of BSP (Biometric Solution Provider) contracts has expired. Therefore,
UIDAI has no objection in sharing the following contract details :-
a) Copy of
contract of UIDAI with M/s L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology; and
b) Copy of
contract of UIDAI with M/s Accenture for Biometric Technology"
After examining these
documents I wrote to UIDAI submitting that with regard to the M/s Accenture for
Biometric Technology, I noticed that the first 237 pages appear to be in order
but after that there is a one pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid Technical
Bid as submitted by M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd. The Technical Bid document
is missing. After that there is a one pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid as
submitted by M/s Accenture Services Pvt Ltd. The Commercial Bid document is
missing.
With regard to the M/s
L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, I noticed that the first 236
pages appear to be in order but after that there is a one pager titled Annexure
I Non-Disclosure Agreement as submitted by M/s L1 Identity Solutions Operating
Company Private Limited. But this document is missing. After that there is a
one pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid as submitted by M/s L1 Identity Solutions
Operating Company Private Limited. The Technical Bid document is missing. After
that there is a one pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid as submitted by M/s
L1 Identity Solutions Operating
Company Private Limited. The Commercial Bid document is missing. These very pages were missing from the contract agreement of Ernst and Young as well. Also its pagination was not in order.
Company Private Limited. The Commercial Bid document is missing. These very pages were missing from the contract agreement of Ernst and Young as well. Also its pagination was not in order.
I also wrote to CIC
responding to their letter dated September 10, 2013 stating that their
reasoning for sharing the document due to "contractual obligation in
respect of BSP (Biometric Solution Provider) contracts" having expired is
flawed in the light of the previous judgment of Central Information Commission
(CIC). Under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Public Information Officer
(PIO) cannot deny information citing commercial confidence for agreements
between a public authority and private party. While giving this judgment, CIC
said “The claim of 'commercial confidence' in denying access to agreements
between private parties and the masters of the public authorities—citizens—runs
counter to the principles of the Right to Information.
“Any agreement entered
into by the government is an agreement deemed to have been entered into on
behalf of and in the interest of ‘We the people’. Hence if any citizen wants to
know the contents of such an agreement he is in the position of a principal
asking his agent to disclose to him the terms of the agreement entered into by
the agent on behalf of the principal. No agent can refuse to disclose any such information
to his principal,” the CIC said in its order dated 27 July 2009. An appeal for
getting the missing pages has been filed by Col. Mathew Thomas and Qaneez
Sukhrani who had filed the RTI applications, the former had asked me to appear
on his behalf.
I submit that there is
a need to examine the minutes of the admitted meeting between Mongo DB and UIDAI.
It was evident from one of the RTI replies that UIDAI had given tasks to some
company with whom it had no contract agreement. Its sounds like the R&D
Centre of Bhopal which was operated by Union Carbide Corporation without permission
based on "recognition"
I urge you to set up an
inquiry commission to ascertain whether or not Internet that remains a defense
project deeply allied with USA’s National Security Agency (NSA) is structurally
linked to biometric aadhaar, National Population Register (NPR), PIII and GSTN.
It is not without reason that Shri Nilekani maintained a deafening silence
amidst NSA’s surveillance on Indian ministers and officialdom. In such a backdrop, it does not seem strange
that PMO under the previous regime has withheld the correspondence it had with
Shri Nilekani all through his tenure. The commission must unearth the players
who wish to create and function through a fiction of private company with
public purpose and profit making as the motive but not profit maximizing called
NIU like GSTN.
Let me take the opportunity to submit that the
Ministry of Defense must order a probe into the circumstances under which Admiral
Nirmal Kumar Verma who as the Chief of the Naval Staff of Indian Navy, from 31
August 2009 to 31 August 2012 and as Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee got
himself biometrically profiled on 18 August 2011 for aadhaar number. It must be
examined whether he took the permission of Ministry of
Defence before subjecting himself to the ignominy of being biometrically
profiled. It is noteworthy that in November 2012, Admiral Verma was appointed
as the High Commissioner to Canada. The probe must examine whether or not Admiral
Verma’s biometric profile is available with Canada’s Communications Security
Establishment Canada (CSEC), which is part of the intelligence sharing alliance
comprising of US, UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and France. In a
seemingly unrelated development, Shri Nilekani was awarded an honorary Doctor
of Laws degree by the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto,
Canada on 31 May 2011.
I submit that Shri Nilekani was given ID Limelight
Award at the global summit on automatic identification ID WORLD International
Congress, 2010 in Milan, Italy on November 16, 2010 wherein Safran Morpho
(Safran group) was a key sponsor of the ID Congress. Its
subsidiary, Sagem Morpho Security Pvt Ltd has been awarded contract for the
purchase of Biometric Authentication Devices on 2 February 2011 by the UIDAI. Earlier,
on 30 July 2010, in a joint press release, it was announced that “the Mahindra
Satyam and Morpho led consortium has been selected as one of the key partners
to implement and deliver the Aadhaar program by UIDAI (Unique Identification
Authority of India).” This means that at least two contracts have been awarded
to the French conglomerate led consortium. Is it a coincidence that
Morpho (Safran group) sponsored the award to chairman, UIDAI and the former got
a contract from the latter?
It is noteworthy that Shri Tariq Malik, the then Deputy
Chairman of Pakistan’s National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was given
the ID Outstanding Achievement Award on November 3, 2009 in Milan at the eighth
ID WORLD International Congress.
In an interview, Shri Julian Assange, founder of
WikiLeaks informed Imran Khan, a noted politician from Pakistan about the grave
act of omission and commission. Shri Assange said, “…we discovered a cable in
2009 from the Islamabad Embassy. Prime minister Gilani and interior minister
Malik went into the (US) embassy and offered to share National Database and
Registration Authority (NADRA) – and NADRA is the national data and
registration agency database. The system is currently connected through
passport data but the government of Pakistan is adding voice and facial
recognition capability and has installed a pilot
biometric system as the Chennai border crossing, where 30,000 to 35,000 people
cross each day. This NADRA system is the voting record system for all voters in Pakistan. A front company was set up in the United
Kingdom – International Identity Services, which was hired as the consultants
for NADRA to squirrel out the NADRA data for all of Pakistan. What do you think
about that? Is that a…? It seems to me that that is a theft of some national
treasure of Pakistan, the entire Pakistani database registry of its people.”
The interview is available here.
It must be noted that NPR is being prepared by Shri
C Chandramouli, census commissioner & registrar general of India, is meant
to create resident identity cards is exactly like Pakistan’s version of
biometric exercise for citizens’ identity card which was completed by NADRA,
ministry of interior, Government of Pakistan and their database has been handed
over to US Government.
I submit that Dr M Vijayanunni, former Census
Commissioner and Registrar General of India underlined had explained reasons
for China giving up a similar exercise on Rajya Sabha TV on 2 February 2013.
In view of the above,
if Shri Nilekani’s initiatives including GSTN are not reversed and he is not
held liable and accountable in an exemplary manner for his illegal and
illegitimate conduct and creation of questionable institutional entities, it
will set a very bad precedent for ever.
I will be happy to
share documents and references which have been cited above.
Thanking You
Yours Sincerely
Gopal Krishna
Citizens Forum for
Civil Liberties (CFCL)
Mb: 08227816731,
09818089660
E-mail:gopalkrishna1715@gmail.com
+ comments + 1 comments
Thanks to inform us about tax statements and know your pan card detail to take benefit of pan card.
Post a Comment