During the period of 2009-2014, Aadhaar was portrayed as a novel and transformational step by the UPA government, saying that, “The new number-based system, known as Aadhaar, or foundation, would be used to verify the identity of any Indian anywhere in the country within eight seconds, using inexpensive hand-held devices linked to the mobile phone network.” – as reported by Lydia Polgreen of New York Times. Aadhaar was meant to be breaking the caste, religion and socio-economic barriers, prevailing in the second-most populated country, India. Lydia reported that, “It would also serve as a shortcut to building real citizenship in a society where identity is almost always mediated through a group — caste, kin and religion. Aadhaar would for the first time identify each Indian as an individual.”

It was effectively portrayed as a means to deliver benefits of all the social welfare schemes to the poorest sections of society. Rajesh Roy and Romit Guha from The Wall Street Journal reported that, “India is planning to start giving cash directly to its poorest citizens, in a bid to reduce massive corruption that prevents subsidized goods and welfare benefits from reaching those who need them. The cash transfer will be enabled through Aadhaar, a numerical biometric identification that is currently being given to everyone in the country.”

In addition, there was also an effort to mandate Aadhaar in other databases for improvements in service delivery and this should be the main prerogative of the departments concerned. Neelasri Barman & M Saraswathy from the Business Standard reported that, “The electronic know-your-customer (e-KYC) process, based on Aadhaar or unique identification number, would be a boon for the banking and financial services sector.” Shweta Punj from Business Today reported that, “consumer goods companies could design applications to monitor the supply chain and improve connectivity with retailers in rural areas. Services such as insurance would improve, as insurers would have better information about potential customers and be able to offer more competitive rates.”

Aadhaar was quoted as an “Effective Delivery Tool”, “Enterprise Catalyst”, “Innovation Enhancer”, and what not! It was expected that millions of people across the country will get benefits of various government schemes – such as cooking gas subsidies and old age pension payments, MNREGA payments, PDS distribution, scholarship payments targeted at them, through the Aadhaar-enabled direct cash transfer system. Frances Zelazny, from Center for Global Development, Washington in his case study reported that “The UID program aims to improve the delivery of government services, reduce fraud and corruption, facilitate robust voting processes, and improve security”.

Not only this, UID was expected to be beneficial for private sector as they will get an economical, secure and flexible mode of verifying user identity. Shweta Punj from Business Today reported that, “One, UID could spur development through entrepreneurial activity, and two, it could empower women.” and that, “The UID project’s open architecture lends itself to innovative applications. Besides MGNREGA payments, Aadhaar can be linked to distribution of cooking gas and foodgrain, cash transfers, and identity proof for SIM cards. It has the potential to spur enterprise and consumer applications.”

Aadhaar became the main achievement of the then UPA Government, as it supposedly promoted financial inclusion. Financial Action Task Force (FATF) [1] Report supremely supported AADHAAR by saying, “If successfully implemented, it (Aadhar project) would be the first biometrically verified unique ID implemented on a national scale and would provide the ‘identity infrastructure´ for financial inclusion as well as for strengthening anti-money laundering and combating terrorist financing implementation,”.

“To build the database, the Indian government has created a highly unusual hybrid institution: a small team of elite bureaucrats who are working with veterans of Silicon Valley start-ups and Bangalore’s most-respected technology companies” – said Lydia Polgreen of The New York Times.

Aadhaar recognises the importance of establishing an effective and much-needed identification infrastructure for Indian residents, in a cost effective and secure manner. Various reports elaborated on the safety of Aadhaar, saying that it is backed by biometric de-duplication, and has a secure and robust identification infrastructure that effectively prevents fraud and duplication. Center for Global Development reported that “Its use of multimodal biometrics increases inclusion into the main enrolment database and has a huge impact in improving accuracy”.

Mihir Sharma writing in Business Standard said that opposing UID due to its privacy implications is an elitist thing to do and poor people need this without a doubt! – “It’s visible also in the attitude to the Unique ID project, continually stymied by elitist (and misplaced) panic about its privacy implications. Those lining up in poorer neighbourhoods across this country for biometric verification and a shot at an actual identity already live with harassment by coercive arms of the state. The UID, they recognise, brings hope of redress and accountability, something the middle class takes for granted.”

There were many success notes and case studies written on Aadhaar and how meticulously UIDAI initiated this effort of national integration and social inclusion. However, the somewhat neutral to positive coverage that Aadhaar used to get suddenly changed into conspiratorial speculation and negativity with the change of government in 2014. As you can see below, in the year 2014-18, the tone of coverage of Aadhaar becomes different. The below headlines show how the same tool changed from a ‘boon for the poor’ to one of ‘state surveillance’.

[1] FATF is an inter-governmental body established in 1989 by the G-7 countries and all the major economies of the world are its members