- Data protection bill: The problem isn’t just the proposed law – it is also who will enforce it
Prashant Reddy writes in his column for Scroll.in that the draft legislation and report of the Justice BN Srikrishna-led Committee of Experts on Data Protection, released by the government on Friday, lays down a fairly elaborate legal regime for protecting the privacy of Indian citizens vis-à-vis the government and private players. It, however, delegates significant power to the proposed Data Protection Authority and Central government to make rules and regulations that would have an impact on how the proposed framework works in practice.
Such a delegation of powers is not unique for contemporary Indian legislation. The bureaucracy that drafts most legislation likes retaining as much power as possible and they do so by drafting skeletal legislation, which when enacted into law by Parliament delegates significant powers back to the government. While most such delegation – including in the proposed Data Protection Bill, 2018 – is likely to be held as constitutional by the courts, its increasing width is troubling because constitutional democracies are premised on the legislature making the law, not the executive.
Very often the debate on new laws and rights in India misses the woods for the trees – we spend all our time debating new rights and liabilities without concentrating on the logistics and independence of the enforcement and adjudication mechanism. It would be in everybody’s interest to focus on these while debating the new data protection legislation.
- What were we smoking then?
Pritish Nandy writes in his column for Mumbai Mirror that last Thursday, a BJP MLA from Karnataka, Basanagouda Patil Yatnal declared at a Kargil Vijay Diwas function that India was facing a grave danger from within, from its intellectuals and liberals who were nothing but a drain on the State. They were all, he said, anti-nationals and had he been the home minister, he would tell the police to line them up and shoot them.
Luckily, he is not. But, well, four intellectuals, including journalist Gauri Lankesh, have already been shot dead in Karnataka and neighboring Maharashtra. No, not by the police but by hired assassins — hired by those who, I presume, think like Yatnal. Yatnal is the same guy who had said earlier, in a viral video, that his party corporators will not work for Muslims, that burkha-clad women and men who wear skull-caps should not follow him around. For he will only work for Hindus. He is not alone. We have heard similar views from some others in his party who see thinking people, liberals, seculars, minorities, farmers, Dalits and tribals and women as their enemy, people to be put down.
We even have a governor in Tripura who described the killing of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 as positive action. The chief minister of Tripura is no less. He has advised the youth of his state not run after government jobs but to stay at home and milk cows or open paan shops. He wants only civil engineers in the civil service for their qualifications match the job.
For a nation that has birthed some of the greatest artistic and scientific minds of our time, this must be a bit rich. But then, we have voted these guys into power. I have no idea what we were smoking then but it is perhaps time to switch over to something less potent — even if that drops our GDP a bit and brings our stock market back to terra firma. Perhaps a lesser, safer, saner India may not be such a bad idea after all.
- A defence without aadhaar
The article by Ram Sewak Sharma (‘Why I gave out my number’) eulogising Aadhaar when the Supreme Court judgement is pending was both improper and inappropriate, says Arvind P. Datar in his column for The Indian Express. He writes that Sharma’s ostensible objective is to demonstrate that an Aadhaar number is secure and a hacking here or there is no ground to justify “scaremongering”. He implores the hackers and critics of Aadhaar to let people benefit from its technology and “go about their lives in peace”. This response is not from the hackers or critics but on behalf of millions of existing and potential “victims” of Aadhaar.
First, if Aadhaar is indeed voluntary, and is made mandatory only for those residents who wish to avail of subsidies, benefits and services paid from the Consolidated Fund of India, then why is it being made mandatory for 48 per cent of Indians who do not avail of any subsidy or service? Second, if an 80-year-old pensioner has received pension for 20 years on the basis of his pension card, why should his pension for the rest of his life be paid only on production of the Aadhaar card? Why should Aadhaar obliterate all other forms of identification that have been successfully used for decades?
Third, it is claimed that the “finest brains” have developed the Aadhaar system to deliver. Can these brilliant minds explain as to why every bank account, provident fund account, insurance policy, mutual fund be linked to the Aadhaar number? Fourth, the article claims without any data, that the adoption of Aadhaar has affected those indulging in tax evasion and benami properties. This is the most ridiculous claim.
Fifth, it is ironic that Sharma points out that it is “neither required nor desirable to provide a copy of the Aadhaar number to various service providers”. He forgets that no Indian can get a telephone connection, an admission for his/her child even in a private school, or cremate his deceased relative without the Aadhaar card.
- Assam list is against humanity
In his column for New Indian Express, Faizan Mustafa writes that the second draft of Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) has been published with 40 lakh people not finding their names in it. They are on the verge of becoming stateless. There are apprehensions of ethnic cleansing or disenfranchisement now due to the rising majoritarian politics, though the government said it is a mere draft and no one will be deported for now.
Citizenship is the relationship of an individual with a political community. It signifies full and equal membership of such a community. Exclusion of outsiders or others is central to the modern citizenship concept. But the Constitution does give some fundamental rights such as the right to equality, right to life and personal liberty, freedom of religion, etc., to even non-citizens and thus these 40 lakh people will continue to enjoy these fundamental rights.
Every illegal Bangladeshi immigrant is not a potential terrorist. We may not even be successful in deporting them to Bangladesh, but those excluded will have a miserable life in detention camps. India is a land of immigrants. Inclusion, not exclusion, has been our culture and motto. Let us not dilute it. Let us reject the politics of bigotry, hate, and us and others as these are not Indian values.
- The NRC exercise will lead to an upsurge in identity politics in the Northeast
Samrat writes in his column for Hindustan Times that even if 35 lakh people are disenfranchised instead of 40 lakh after appeals, it would still be the biggest such mass disenfranchisement in world history. This is being welcomed by sections of the right wing who see it as a case of illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants being evicted, and by sections of the Assamese nationalist right wing, which sees it as a case of illegal Bengali immigrants being evicted.
The “Bongal Kheda” or “drive out Bengalis” agitation began circa 1960 in Assam. In 1979, the Assam agitation, directed towards evicting illegal migrants from Bangladesh, took off. “Bongals” were again the targets. Bengali Muslims, usually the first to be labelled Bangladeshis, are not the only ones affected. Reports from Cachar indicate that over a lakh Hindus there, most of whom are traditional BJP supporters, are also out of the list. Gorkha community representatives say at least a lakh of their people are not on the list. There are indications that members of many tribal groups including Bodos, who belong to poor families, are also left out.
By its very nature, the process has tended to affect the poor more than the rich and some communities more than others. This fundamental inequity in a matter seriously affecting the lives of millions is unlikely to lead anywhere good. It will only lead to an upsurge in various kinds of identity politics, linguistic and religious, with potentially catastrophic consequences for the Northeast.