Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : March2017

The New York Times Editorial That Has Upset Modi Govt

Image result for The New York Times Editorial modi

NEW DELHI: The appointment of Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh was the subject of a strong, no holds barred editorial in the New York Times that saw in this a confirmation of Prime Minister’s ‘appeasement’ of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s “hard line Hindu base.” “Mr Modi revealed his hand,” concluded the NYT Editorial Board.

This clearly upset and angered the government here. So much so that the Ministry of External Affairs issued an official counter through the spokesperson questioning the ‘wisdom’ of NYT.

“All editorials or opinions are subjective. This case is particularly so and the wisdom in doubting the verdicts of genuine democratic exercises is quite questionable, both at home and abroad,” External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Gopal Baglay said.

The NYT editorial reads as follows:

Mr Modi’s Perilous Embrace of Hindu Extremists

Since he was elected in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of Indiahas played a cagey game, appeasing his party’s hard-line Hindu base while promoting secular goals of development and economic growth. Despite worrying signs that he was willing to humor Hindu extremists, Mr. Modi refrained from overtly approving violence against the nation’s Muslim minority.

On Sunday, Mr. Modi revealed his hand. Emboldened by a landslide victory in recent elections in India’s largest state, Uttar Pradesh, hisparty named a firebrand Hindu cleric, Yogi Adityanath, as the state’s leader. The move is a shocking rebuke to religious minorities, and a sign that cold political calculations ahead of national elections in 2019 have led Mr. Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party to believe that nothing stands in the way of realizing its long-held dream of transforming a secular republic into a Hindu state.

Mr. Adityanath has made a political career of demonizing Muslims, thundering against such imaginary plots as “love jihad”: the notion that Muslim men connive to water down the overwhelming Hindu majority by seducing Hindu women. He defended a Hindu mob that murdered a Muslim man in 2015 on the suspicion that his family was eating beef, and said Muslims who balked at performing a yoga salutation to the sun should “drown themselves in the sea.”

Uttar Pradesh, home to more than 200 million people, badly needs development, not ideological showmanship. The state has the highestinfant mortality rate in the country. Nearly half of its children are stunted. Educational outcomes are dismal. Youth unemployment is high.

Mr. Adityanath has sounded the right notes, saying, “My government will be for everyone, not specifically for any caste or community,” and promising to make Uttar Pradesh “the dreamland” of Mr. Modi’s development model.

But the appointment shows that Mr. Modi sees no contradiction between economic development and a muscular Hindu nationalism that feeds on stoking anti-Muslim passions. Mr. Modi’s economic policies have delivered growth, but not jobs. India needs to generate a million new jobs every month to meet employment demand. Should Mr. Adityanath fail to deliver, there is every fear that he — and Mr. Modi’s party — will resort to deadly Muslim-baiting to stay in power, turning Mr. Modi’s dreamland into a nightmare for India’s minorities, and threatening the progress that Mr. Modi has promised to all of its citizens.

(Cover Photograph: Carried by the NYT along with its editorial)

Related posts

The Anti-Romeo Squads Have Divided Hindi And English Media

Is it an opportunity for UP’s police to redeem itself? Or will it let moral policing go on a rampage?

Posted By Anand Vardhan |

It’s not unusual to differ with your siblings, even when it’s in the world of publications as it turned out. Just look at Hindustan, the sister publication of the English daily, The Hindustan Times. Out of sync with its English counterpart’s apprehensions about anti-Romeo squads in Uttar Pradesh, Hindustan reported that the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) poll promise of having a force dedicated to check harassment and stalking of women resonated very well with voters in western Uttar Pradesh. Hindustan even identified it as one of the reasons for party’s electoral success in the region. Assessing the positive response to the idea of anti-Romeo squads in terms of the scale of the problem which often leads to communal flare ups, the paper said: “Eve teasing of girl students is a daily occurrence.  Girls are too frightened to protest or to file police complaints. When offenders belonging to a particular community are arrested, it often leads to situation of communal tension”.

Such endorsement of a full-time team to keep an eye on harassment shouldn’t have come as a surprise. Last month The Quint did an exclusive report on UP’s Bijnor district, probing how sexual harassment of girl students had contributed to the school drop-out rate of girls. The report was in wake of a violent clash that took place in September 2016, in Bijnor when an incident took a communal turn and claimed four lives. Reporting from UP just before the assembly elections, journalist Barkha Dutt had talked to a group of girl students in Lucknow University about the promised squad. The answers had ranged from welcoming it as a positive initiative to seeing shades of anti-love jihad monitoring in it. Recognising it as a measure that would help girls from all communities, one student said, “I don’t see it as a religious issue or related to love jihad. At least an initiative has been taken, these people’s duty is to take care of these crimes”. Meanwhile, ‘love jihad’ as a threat and the need for concerted action against it remain contested ideas – opinion and evidence are split, supporting rival claims of both sceptics and alarmists.

In contrast, concerns about moral policing have figured in most reports and commentary on anti-Romeo squads in English media. The Times of India reported how the squad could easily morph into moral police hauling up innocent young men and courting couples. It raised the bogey of the return of the botched up ‘Operation Majnu’ drive of 2005. The Indian Express made its unease known in a report with the headline, “BJP’s anti- Romeo poll promise turns harsh reality.” The paper in an edit attacked the idea and its strapline posed the question, “Police squads checking on couples violate citizens’ rights and dignity. Is this the New India PM spoke of after UP triumph?” Before slamming the idea of the squad in its edit on March 23, The Hindustan Times had carried KumKum Dasgupta’s piece last month in which she dubbed the electoral promise of such a squad as “dim-witted”. The paper also had a  report on how a similar squad in Gujarat, though in an ad hoc and less organised form, had only modest success in curbing harassment.

Reacting to  BJP president Amit Shah’s announcement of the formation of anti-Romeo squads as a part of BJP’s election manifesto, Kritika Banerjee listed out three reasons on India Today for it being a bad idea. Her reasoning was predictable – the threat of it being used for moral policing, “love jihad redux” and semantic quibbling over the choice of the Shakespearean character Romeo to target.

Aware of the fact that escalated vigilance against harassment or its potential perpetrators could be perceived as moral policing, Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Javeed Ahmad tweeted to allay such fears.

Safety of girls/ladies is the sole intent of the anti Romeo squads. No moral policing.

Unlike most commentators in English media space, Somya Khera was willing to appreciate the need for such measures and sought a fair chance for it to succeed. In her piece for The Financial Express, she cited the following reasons: statistical figures show an average of six rapes and 15 molestation cases daily, mental trauma of harassed girls, unsafe travel that women have to deal with, and offenders cutting across educational, economic, locational and religious sections.

Perhaps it’s this line of argument which has found more favour in Hindi dailies. The tone of their headlines approve of the squad and the reports suggest its impact on troublemakers. Dainik Jagran  reported its deterrent and punitive effect on harassment around women’s colleges and schools in Lucknow (“Lucknow mein anti-Romeo dal ka manchalo par sikanja, fabtiyan kasna para mahanga”, Anti- Romeo squad tightens noose on eve teasers, passing lewd remarks proves costly, March 22). Amar Ujala also reported the impact of the measures on curbing the menace (“Yogi Raj mein shohodon ki ghatiya khari”, Eve-teasers face the music in Yogi rule, March 22). In another report filed from Ghaziabad, the paper says, “13 manchalo par gira anti-Romeo squad ka kahar, Yogi Sarkar ne poora kiya wada” (Anti-Romeo squad nabs 13 eve-teasers, Yogi government fulfills its promise, March 22). The paper has also conducted an online poll to show how its readers view anti-Romeo squad. As many as 81 per cent of the people who voted are hopeful that this move would curb harassment of women.

In a report filed from Banda, Patrika has reported intense patrolling for catching those who harass women and the impact it has had on frightening the troublemakers. Dainik Bhaskar has profiled Charu Nigam, the lady police officer who is part of the team supervising anti-Romeo squads (“Anti- Romeo squad ki leader hain ye IPS adhikari”, This IPS officer leads anti-Romeo squads, March 23). However, the paper in its editorial comment (“Hindutva ke agendein se Yogi ke mathh mein kaid hota Uttar Pradesh, Hindutva agenda making Uttar Pradesh captive of Yogi’s religious trust, March 23)  broke ranks with the Hindi press in raising questions about the modus operandi and consequences of such policing as well as the reasoning behind crackdown on slaughterhouses. It shares, as an exception, some of the concerns shown by English papers about moral policing. Still, like Hindustan’s edit, Dainik Jagran views (“Janmat ka Samman”, Respecting the mandate, March 23) such measures as acts of honouring the decisive electoral mandate and respecting people’s approval of these proposals in BJP’s manifesto.

The concerns raised about the possible misuse of the tough measures suggests a thing or two about the low credibility of law enforcement in India, or rather the lack of it. If nothing else, the police force could see this as an opportunity to redeem itself and ensure women feel safe in UP.https://www.newslaundry.com/2017/03/24/the-anti-romeo-squads-have-divided-hindi-and-english-media

Related posts

Maharashtra : 14% cut in housing budget, Only 9% fund utilised from the previous allocation

Bhim Chhaya slum in Kannamwar nagar, Mumbai

Only 9% fund utilised from the previous allocation

Faulty framework to address the housing problem

 

Slums under threat of eviction immediately after BMC elections

The current allocation of fund for housing for fiscal year 2017-18 by Maharashtra has seen 14% cut against the previously allocated fund. Maharashtra government could only use 9% of the previously allocated fund for housing. While at the same time local authorities in Mumbai, have started evicting those very slums who were promised basic amenities before the BMC election. The cut in the current housing budget, the underutilisation of the previous fund and the eviction drive only suggest the indifference of the government towards a grave housing problem.

The table below explains the cut in the current budget and the underutilisation of the previous budget:

 

Housing Budget

Table 1: Budget figures                                                                                                                                 Amount in Rs. Crores

  2015-16

Actuals

2016-17

Budget Estimates

2016-17

Revised Estimates

2017-18

 Budget Estimates

Housing 739.00 1150.00 3487.00 2978.00
per capita Rs. 61.53 94.88 287.71 243.90
percent of Govt Expenditure 0.35 0.45 1.32 1.06
percent of GSDP 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.12

 

The allocations to housing department in year 2017-18 have been cut by almost 14% as compared with the revised estimates of 2016-17.

Table 2: Expenditure on housing in year 2016-17 as on 20 March 2017                     Amount in Rs. Crores

Yearly Budget April-March
Major Head Budgeted Released % Received BEAMS Expenditure Actual Expenditure
in Treasury
% of Actual Expenditure
in Treasury
Housing 2081.763 187.299 8.997 187.299 179.658 178.660 8.582

 

As on 20 March 2017, the housing department has spent only 8.58% of its budgeted funds. This gross underspending will surely reflect through all the flagship programs and schemes under housing.

Source: JHA

 

 

The mechanism set by the Maharashtra government to solve housing problem will only cater to the need of the few needy people while a large chunk of people will be still facing the same problem.  The Maharashtra draft housing policy has estimated a shortage of 19 lakh housing units. The government aims to construct these units by the year 2022 in accordance with the Central ’Housing For All’ scheme. However, the slow peace with which the government is working to complete the aims tells a different story. Not even a single house unit is built under the Housing For All scheme in period of almost three years.

 

The rules formulated by the Maharashtra Government to implement the Central HFA scheme are such that it will provide housing to those who can happily spare Rs. 8,000-10,000 per month as EMI for the housing obtained under this scheme. While it has emerged from the survey being conducted by the Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan in various slums in Mumbai-where the most of the housing shortage is calculated- that there is a huge population which earn less than 8,000-10,000 per month. These are the slums which are not protected by the government and are not eligible for alternative housing. These slums are now being evicted immediately after BMC election.

 

A major slum in Char Bunglows called Siddharth Nagar was under threat of eviction today but due to people’s pressure, it has been stopped temporarily. Had pressure was not built, more than 600 families would have been made homeless. During the election campaign several political parties promised of all the basic amenities in this settlement. BMC even sanctioned water connection and community toilets to this settlement very recently. Around 300 children going in the local DN Nagar BMC schooling are have their exams going on. Before the Hosuing For All scheme is implemented, several thousand are being made homeless. This is precisely because a scheme cannot guarantee protection of right but a law. Hence a separate law is needed to protect housing rights and ensure every needy person a security of minimum housing and livelihood.

 

The eviction drive going on in Mumbai at different places, which are mostly going unreported, only suggests that the Maharashtra government has realised that it cannot meet the target of 19 lakh housing units by 2022 nor it can cater to each needy household, hence they are trying to get rid of their responsibility by simply evicting people. We condemn this tacit policy of the government to address the housing problem and demand practical policy to solve housing problem.

Related posts

Jabalpur boy suffering from Progeria made MPSCPCR chairman for a day

Shreyansh Waghmare had expressed his wish to visit Bhopal, and hence, a trip was arranged by the Commission.

progeria, jabalpur boy, Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, MPSCPCR, Shreyansh Waghmare, india news, indian express news

Progeria affected Shreyansh Baghmare, 11, who has been given the charge of Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights for one day, at a press conference in Bhopal on Friday. (Source: PTI Photo)A 10-year-old boy from Jabalpur suffering from Progeria was made chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (MPSCPCR) for a day on Friday. Shreyansh Waghmare had expressed his wish to visit Bhopal, and hence, a trip was arranged by the Commission. Progeria is a progressive genetic disorder which causes a child to age rapidly. “Shreyansh had expressed desire to visit Bhopal. So we decided to make him the Commission chairman for a day to make him happy,” MPSCPCR chairman Dr Raghvendra Sharma told media.

Shreyansh took part in a programme here as the MPSCPCR chairman, Sharma said. His father Arvind Waghmare said his son was very happy today. “We have taken him to a hospital in Nagpur where doctors told him that this disease is incurable. Such kids live less, and therefore, it is always better to keep them as happy as possible,” Waghmare said.

He further said Shreyansh’s twin brother Siddhanth is absolutely normal and they both study in class V. “Shreyansh is a normal kid in school but gets irritated occasionally when someone tries to pull his cap. He goes to school daily and takes interest in studies,” he said.

Progeria was highlighted by director R Balki in his film “Paa” where Amitabh Bachchan had essayed the role of a child with Progeria. Shreyansh, Waghmare says, is a huge fan of Bachchan and has epxressed his desire to meet the legendary actor.

Shreyansh after conducting Commission’s review meeting issued important directives to the government including action against policemen who deliberately delay action against accused involved in sexual offences against children.

If police delay action against persons involved in sexual offences against children, then punitive measures should be taken against concerned policemen under the provisions of Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), says the directive issued by Shreyansh.

He also appealed to the government to provide free of cost treatment to those affected with Progeria and also directed the current head of the Commission to provide such forum (which was provided to Shreyansh) to “Divyang” children at district level. Later, he told reporters about the above decisions and also sang a song on demand.http://indianexpress.com/article/india/jabalpur-boy-suffering-from-progeria-made-mpscpcr-chairman-for-a-day-4584100/

Related posts

Unfolding Aadhaar Scam: Important pages missing from UIDAI contracts-RTI

After refusing to share contract documents for years, the UIDAI finally provided it under the RTI Act, with important pages missing

04 Nov  2014

In the matter of Right to Information (RTI) application, on 14 October 2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission (CIC) wrote a letter on behalf of Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) & Deputy Director, UIDAI. The letter states, “I am directed to convey that you should, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, provide to the Appellant the limited information i.e. financial quotation/ price by the third party firms in the subject tender as disclosure of it would not inflict any harm to the competitive position of third party firms at this stage when the contracts have already expired.”

The RTI application was filed seeking a complete copy of the contract UIDAI signed with L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, on 24 August 2010 and a copy of the contract UIDAI signed with Accenture for Biometric Technology, on 1 September 2010.
Responding to this letter, Subrata Das, the CPIO & Deputy Director, UIDAI wrote to the RTI Appellant on 22 October 2014 in compliance with the CIC decision on the second Appeal hearing dated 30 September 2014.

UIDAI’s letter reads, “The requisite letter in compliance with the CIC decision is as under:
(i) financial quotation/ price quoted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd is Rs2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services
(ii) financial quotation/price quoted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd is Rs2.75 (inclusive of taxes) as a unit price for Enrollment Allotted Transaction for De-duplication Services

This reply implies that for each of the 100 crore Indian residents targeted for Aadhaar enrolment, the taxpayer through the central government will have to incur the cost of Rs2.75 to the companies in question. This is significant because this is not a one-time cost but each time de-duplication of Aadhaar number is done, the cost will be incurred.

 

Besides other gnawing concerns about an assault on human rights, national security, economy and sovereignty, this is yet another case of foreign companies withholding transfer of technology from developing countries.

It is also relevant to recall that two US based corporations, HP and IBM, had challenged UIDAI’s tender processes. They had objected to their technical disqualification. The Rs2,000 crore contract for UIDAI’s tender for managed service provider was won by Wipro Technologies. The Economics Times had reported on how the UIDAI tender process was unfair.”
Notably, the ‘Strategic Vision on the UIDAI Project’ document that was prepared and submitted to the processes committee of the Planning Commission (set up in July 2006) by Wipro Ltd (consultant for the design phase and programme management phase of the pilot UIDAI project).
It is noteworthy that the decision of Sharat Sabharwal, Information Commissioner, CIC and the letter of UIDAI furnishing “Limited Financial Information” is contrary to the original order of Sushma Singh, the Information Commissioner, CIC dated 21 October 2013. Mr Sabharwal’s order appears indulgent towards the UIDAI and the foreign companies in question.

The sequence of events in this regard is quite germane for understanding the issues at hand. The Biometric Service Providers, namely, Satyam Computer Services/Sagem Morpho, L1 Identity Solutions and Accenture Services had responded to UIDAI’s Expression of Interest (EoI) and submitted their tenders for accepting the projects on the basis of fulfilling the following clauses:
a) The prime respondent should have an office in India in the form of a Registered Office.
b) If the prime respondent does not have a Registered Office, then it should have a Branch office, Representative Office, Sales Office, or an office of its subsidiary company in India for the purpose of submission of the expression of interest response.
c) If the prime respondent is unable to meet the stated conditions, it shall submit a declaration/confirmation stating that it shall have Registered Office in India for the purposes of signing contracts with the UIDAI.

But in its letter dated 21 July 2011, the UIDAI stated that “There is no means to verify whether the said companies/ organizations are of US origin or not. As per our contractual terms and conditions, only the companies registered in India can bid.” If that is indeed the case then the UIDAI will have no means to verify whether Sagem Morpho and later L1 are of French origin or not.

Subsequent RTI applications forced UIDAI to share contract agreements with these companies, which clearly stated their countries of origin. This establishes that the UIDAI did have the means of verifying the foreign origin of the companies in question. It indulged in misrepresentation of facts with impunity.

If the letter of 14 October 2014, Vijay Bhalla, Deputy Registrar, CIC is read with the interim order of Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner, CIC dated 26 July 2013, it become abundantly clear that UIDAI had raised the issue of Third Party’s trade secret and propriety information and the same was responded to by the author in writing. The order reads: “The appellant’s representative filed written submissions before the Commission, which inter-alia states that denial of information is not in public interest.

 

The people of India have a right to know the details of the contracts issued by an Authority set up under an order of the Executive and the Authority claiming to act on behalf of the Government of India, entering into contracts with private firms, both foreign and Indian. Since the contracts are paid from Government funds and the project for which the contracts have been given pertained to the collection and processing of personal information of every person residing in India, including the citizens, the people have a right to the said information.”

In her order, she asked the UIDAI to provide “written submissions, justifying non-disclosure of the information sought by the appellant under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act.” The matter was scheduled for hearing on 10 September 2013.

On 10 September 2013, UIDAI failed to provide the “written submissions, justifying non-disclosure of the information sought by the appellant under the provisions of Section 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act”. UIDAI realized that it does not have any defence under the said RTI Act for denial of information. It submitted a letter (No. F.2013/096/2012-RTI-UIDAI) dated 10 September 2013 to Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner, CIC.

On 10 September 2013, the author attended the hearing at the Central Information Commission (CIC). Shirish Kumar, Assistant Director General (ADG), Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and Shalic Das, ADG, UIDAI, were also present during the hearing, wherein the CIC sought an explanation from the UIDAI about their refusal to share a copy of all contracts given to biometric technology companies, namely, L1 Identity Solutions and Accenture. To which the UIDAI “submitted before the Commission that the copy of the said contracts can now be provided as the contracts have now expired.”
The UIDAI gave a written submission to the CIC (No.F12013/096/2012-RTI-UIDAI) stating that “contractual obligation with respect to BSP’s (Biometric Solution Provider) contracts had expired. Therefore, UIDAI has no objection in sharing the following contract details :-
a) Copy of contract of UIDAI with L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology; and b) Copy of contract of UIDAI with Accenture for Biometric Technology”.
Taking this submission into account, Sushma Singh, Information Commissioner, CIC gave her final order saying, “In view of the above, the Commission hereby directs the respondent (UIDAI) to provide a copy of the two contracts to the appellant within two weeks from the receipt of the order.” This order demolished the reasoning behind the claim of UIDAI for denial of contract agreements of these foreign companies. UIDAI had stated that “The information relating to the referred contracts cannot be disclosed as per clause 8.1 (d) of RTI Act, 2005” in its letter dated 7 May 2012.
Following the hearing, the author met Shirish Kumar, ADG, UIDAI at their office in Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi who gave me copies of the contract of UIDAI with L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology and Accenture for Biometric Technology.
After examining the contract agreement with regard to the Accenture for Biometric Technology, the author noticed that the first 237 pages of the contract agreement were in order but after that there is a one pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid Technical Bid as submitted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd but the Technical Bid document is missing.

 

After that there is a one pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid Commercial Bid as submitted by Accenture Services Pvt Ltd but the Commercial Bid document is missing.
With regard to the L1 Identity Solutions for Biometric Technology, the author noticed that the first 236 pages were in order, but a one pager titled “Annexure I Non-Disclosure Agreement as submitted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd” is missing. After that there is a one pager titled Annexure J Technical Bid as submitted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd., which is missing. After that there is a one pager titled Annexure K Commercial Bid as submitted by L1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Pvt Ltd., which is missing.
This compelled the author to write to Shirish Kumar, ADG, UIDAI about the “Missing Pages from the contract agreement of UIDAI and foreign biometric technology companies, CIC Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/003157,” asking him to share the missing papers. It was/is evident that although the CIC asked the UIDAI to share a copy of the contracts, it chose to violate this order and shared truncated and selected parts of the contact agreement.
Shirish Kumar responded on 20 December 2013 claiming, “There are no missing pages in the two contracts…Some of the pages in the above contracts have only references of Annexures. The annexures J&L w.r.t Accenture Service Pvt Ltd mentioned Technical Bid and Commercial Bid. The annexures I, J, & K wrt to L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Pvt Ltd mentioned-non disclosure Agreement, Technical Bid and Commercial Bids.” The very next paragraph of his letter revealed the inconsistency of his claim.
He further stated, “As per Confidentiality Disclosure statement, the document contains confidential information of the above firms and they have requested not to disclose the information outside UIDAI or be used for purposes other than the evaluation of their business capabilities. Secondly, this being third party information, the firms were requested for their comments, wherein they had declined to share their documents with any applicant.http://www.moneylife.in/article/unfolding-aadhaar-scam-important-pages-missing-from-uidai-contracts-part1/39321.html

Related posts

India – #Aadhaar is Defying Fundamental Rights with Impunity

 

Linking of biometric Aadhaar number to all public services is designed to cause “civil death”. Civil death is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person caused by the government of a country. It is clear that denial of rights in the absence of Aadhaar is an act of coercion that would lead to civil death. Despite promotion and normalisation of such cruelty most of the opposition political parties are avoiding a clear political position demanding the scrapping of the biometric identification exercise.

Ever since the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was set up in 2009 by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to implement the Unique Identification (UID)/ Aadhaar Number project for creating a database of biometric and demographic information, it has been dogged by controversy. It has also been the subject of a number of petitions in the Supreme Court. In 2016, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government introduced the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill in the Lok Sabha as a “money bill” abandoning the vociferous objection to the project that it had shown while in the opposition benches. It was passed on 11 March 2016 by the Lok Sabha and later certain provisions of the Act came into force from 12 July and September 2016The act aimed at providing “efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals”. According to media reports the 12-digit Aadhaar numbers have already been issued to 1.08 crore people in the country.

Linking of biometric Aadhaar to all public services is designed to cause civil death. Civil death is the loss of all or almost all civil rights by a person caused by the government of a country. It is clear that denial of rights in the absence of Aadhaar is an act of coercion that would lead to civil death. Despite promotion and normalisation of such cruelty most opposition political parties are avoiding a clear political position demanding the scrapping of the biometric identification exercise.

While looking at the experiences of other countries where technology and human rights have come into conflict, this article also lists the violations of Court rulings that have marked the government’s actions in regard to Aadhaar.

Politics Will Deal With You

Justice Klara Sooronkulova, a judge at the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan was dismissed by Parliament of the central Asian state through an engineered majority. She had been in the process of drafting a document declaring the country’s law on biometric registration unconstitutional when she was sacked on 18 June 2015 for challenging the government’s plan to collect fingerprints and other biometric data from citizens. Just before her dismissal she had been taken off a case related to biometric identification which she had been handling (Eurasianet.org 2015).

Sooronkulova said that the judges who voted against her in the Judicial Council were subject to undue influence from the office of President Almazbek Atambaev to ensure that she did not declare the biometric identification law unconstitutional. She said, “everyone has to decide for himself whether he wants to trust the state or not. If you do not deal with politics, politics will deal with you.” Endorsing her position, Temirbek Asanbekov, a former presidential candidate of Kyrgyzstan said

“By introducing biometric registration as a condition for participating in the election, the state creates artificial barriers. To elect and be elected is a constitutional right and not an obligation. We should bear in mind the general state of information security in the country. Citizens’ data could become accessible by various extortionists or even international terrorists. Who will guarantee that evil-minded people will not gain access to this database?” (Eurasianet.org 2015)

On 23 July 1998 the Supreme Court of Philippines invalidated the order of President Fidel V Ramos of 12 December 1996 adopting the National Computerised Identification Reference System for citizens and foreigners in the Philippines. “Adoption of a National Computerised Identification Reference System (has been) declared null and void for being unconstitutional” concluded the final decision by a 12-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. The Court pronounced this verdict after observing that given the record-keeping power of the computer only the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that law can give “to the government the power to compile a devastating dossier against unsuspecting citizens.” The Court also recollected the warning of Harry Kalven, Jr, an American jurist, who said, “the disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have lost its benign capacity to forget.” (The Lawphil Project 1998)

On 27 February 2008 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the “blanket and indiscriminate nature” of the power of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples, and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offenses, failed to strike a fair balance between competing public and private interests and ruled that the government had “overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation”. The ruling on 4 December 2008 was the unanimous decision of 17 judges and cannot be appealed against. (European Court Of Human Rights 2008)

Court Rulings

In India, however, a plethora of interim and final rulings notwithstanding the Supreme Court continues to be seized with the case of the 12-digit biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number since 30 November 2012.

In Justice K S Puttaswamy v Union of India (WP(C) No.494/2012) a bench of then Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice J Chelameswar issued notices after the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 was trashed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance in December, 2011. The Bill had been introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 3 December, 2010. After its introduction, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in consultation with the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha had referred the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance, which presented the report to the Lok Sabha and laid it in the Rajya Sabha on 13 December 2011.

On 23 September 2013 in the matter of biometric data based unique identification of Indian residents a bench of Justices B S Chauhan and S A Bobde issued an interim order stating that “no person should suffer for not getting the Adhaar card in spite of the fact that some authority had issued a circular making it mandatory”. The same bench reiterated on 26 November 2013 that “Interim order to continue, in the meantime.” In Unique Identification Authority of India of India v Central Bureau of Investigation, the bench of Justices B S Chauhan and J Chelameswar ordered on 24 March that

“In the meanwhile, the present petitioner is restrained from transferring any biometric information of any person who has been allotted the Aadhaar number to any other agency without his consent in writing. More so, no person shall be deprived of any service for want of Aadhaar number in case he/she is otherwise eligible/entitled. All the authorities are directed to modify their forms/circulars/likes so as to not compulsorily require the Aadhaar number in order to meet the requirement of the interim order passed by this Court forthwith.”

This categorical order made it crystal clear that biometric UID/Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory in any situation. This order was repeated on 16 March 2015 by the bench of Justices J Chelameswar, S A Bobde and C Nagappan saying,

“In the meanwhile, it is brought to our notice that in certain quarters, Aadhar identification is being insisted upon by the various authorities, we do not propose to go into the specific instances. Since Union of India is represented by learned Solicitor General and all the States are represented through their respective counsel, we expect that both the Union of India and States and all their functionaries should adhere to the Order passed by this Court on 23rd September, 2013.”

After hearing the matter at length, the same bench observed on 11 August 2015:

“In this batch of matters, a scheme propounded by the Government of India popularly known as “Aadhaar Card Scheme” is under attack on various counts. For the purpose of this order, it is not necessary for us to go into the details of the nature of the scheme and the various counts on which the scheme is attacked. Suffice it to say that under the said scheme the Government of India is collecting and compiling both the demographic and biometric data of the residents of this country to be used for various purposes, the details of which are not relevant at present”.

It specifically ordered,

“The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card; the production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen.”

Bench of Appropriate Strength

Disregarding the opposition of senior counsels including by a former solicitor general and pursuant to the submission of the attorney general that “the legal position regarding the existence of the fundamental right to privacy is doubtful”, this bench inferred that it is better that it be examined and authoritatively decided by a bench of appropriate strength. It directed the Registry to place these matters before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

A constitution bench of “appropriate strength” consisting of then Chief Justice H L Dattu, Justices M Y Eqbal, C Nagappan, Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy ordered,

“We impress upon the Union of India that it shall strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by this Court commencing from 23.09.2013. We will also make it clear that the Aadhaar card Scheme is purely voluntary and it cannot be made mandatory till the matter is finally decided by this Court one way or the other.”

The order of the Chief Justice headed constitution bench of “appropriate strength” further said, “Since there is some urgency in the matter, we request the learned Chief Justice of India to constitute a Bench for final hearing of these matters at the earliest” on 15 October 2015.

Even as a Constitution Bench of “appropriate strength” remains to be constituted even after one year and three months despite the order of the Chief Justice headed constitution bench of five judges comprising “appropriate strength” since 15 October 2015 the Supreme Court’s Registry has ignored it. In the mean time nearly 639 organisations denied fundamental rights to Indians in violation of the Supreme Court’s constitution bench order on the subject of 12-digit biometric Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar number (explained a little later on in this article).This has been revealed by a government document titled “Aadhaar: Dynamics of Digital Identity”. On 14 September 2016, the Supreme Court’s bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel reiterated the earlier order of the constitution bench after the passage of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 underlining the fact that last written order of the Supreme Court is the law of the land.

This case of the All India Muslim Minority Students Council was referred to this bench by the bench of Justices T S Thakur, A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud on 9 September 2016.

It must also be noted that responding to the direction issued to the Union of India and the union territory of Chandigarh by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of the civil writ petition 569 of 2013 filed against the Union of India and others, the Executive Order for making the Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar mandatory has been withdrawn. The bench of Justices A K Sikri and Rakesh Kumar Jain had noted on 19 February 2013 that the petition “raises a pure question of law.” Since the Executive Order was withdrawn, the case too was disposed of on 2 March 2013 with a two-page order.

The Court had observed, “In this writ petition filed as PIL, the petitioner has challenged the vires of notification issued by Union of India for making it compulsory to have UID Cards.” Several high courts have taken similar positions. Drawing on the Supreme Court’s orders, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court bench of Chief Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey stayed a government order regarding the installation of Aadhaar Enabled Biometric System (AEBAS) in government departments to ensure the attendance of employees in their respective departments. This makes the use of the AEBAS by 639 organisations and other agencies questionable because its implementation amounts to denial of fundamental rights.

A “Legitimate Fear”

Disregarding such categorical directions and continuing its assault on fundamental rights, the Union Ministry of Finance under Arun Jaitley has communicated a common strategy to be adopted by banks to achieve the targets under “Aadhaar Seeding in mission mode” (letter F No 21(23)/2014-FI (MISSION) of 13 July 2016). It fixes the timelines for achieving 100% Aadhaar seeding of all the accounts and common strategies to be adopted by all the banks have also been communicated. The list of notifications and circulars issued by the UIDAI indicate that there were no steps taken to strictly follow all the earlier orders passed by the Court.

The application programming interfaces (API) Aadhaar authentication usage and the UIDAI press release of 29 November 2016 indicates that they have directed regional centres to enrol joint entrance examination (JEE) aspirants on priority. This is discriminatory and vindicates the apprehensions expressed by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its submission before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance that had examined and trashed the Aadhaar Bill 2010.

Referring to the arrival of the era of the Adhaar number and the incident of surveillance, in an article titled My Call Detail Records and A Citizen’s Right to Privacy published in Gujarati, Hindi, Urdu and English, Jaitley as the then leader of opposition in the Rajya Sabha had written, “This incident throws up another legitimate fear.” Notably, his government through the attorney general successfully managed to plant doubts in the mind of the Justice Chelameswar headed bench regarding the right to privacy being a fundamental right despite pre-existing judicial pronouncements in this respect.

Blatant Disobedience of Court Order

The Aadhaar authentication description ignores modification of its authentication framework and consequently the forms/circulars/API so as to not compulsorily require the Aadhaar number. The perusal of UIDAI related events on its website indicates that it is running sensitisation workshops on Aadhaar Seeding and Authentication Services every fortnight. A circular also indicates that the UIDAI has not restricted its activities to those permitted by the Court. The UIDAI ignores the requirement to give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an UID/Aadhaar Number. The Aadhaar authentication description has ignored modification of its authentication processes and APIs so that Aadhaar identification cannot be insisted upon by the various authorities. The UIDAI website shows UIDAI has undertaken multiple activities to ensure Aadhaar seeding in facilitated in various scheme databases.

The introduction to Aadhaar Authentication from its authentication API shows that it ignores any modification of its authentication API or “know your customer” (KYC) frameworks so that the production of an UID/Aadhaar number will not be a condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen. The operation model overview for the Aadhaar authentication continues to ignore altering its authentication and KYC services to ensure that the Aadhaar card scheme remains purely voluntary and cannot be made mandatory.

The API Aadhaar authentication usage form has not been modified to restrict the access of the authentication and KYC services. A copy of the list of live authenticated user agencies (AUA), authentication service agencies (ASA), e-KYC user agencies (KUA) indicates that hundreds of private parties have been allowed by the UIDAI to access the Aadhaar number and associated data thus not restricting the use of the Aadhaar number. Its website shows that the UID/Aadhaar number is being promoted as a financial address and it also promotes Aadhaar authentication for financial transactions to encourage electronic payments.

A press note titled 10 crore Aadhaars linked to Bank Accounts issued by the UIDAI indicates that they have not restricted the use of the UID/Aadhaar number. One spreadsheet on the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI)’s website highlights that the UIDAI has been providing authentication and KYC services to this non government company for various banking services.

It is instructive to observe that the Election Commission of India is the only agency that has complied with the Supreme Court’s orders in letter and spirit. The Commission revised its order dated 27 February 2015 on 13 August 2015. Its revised order reads:

“All further activities relating to collection/feeding/seeding of Aadhaar Number being undertaken currently under NERPAP shall be suspended with immediate effect till further directions from the Commission. In other words, henceforth no more collection of Aadhaar Numbers from electors or feeding/seeding of collected Aadhaar data shall be done by any election authority or officials connected with the NERPAP.” (National Electoral Rolls Purification & Authentication Programme) .

This revised order of the Election Commission is a model order. It demonstrates how to comply with the Court’s order in letter and spirit. All the 639 organisations and other public and private agencies who are implementing UID/Aadhaar related schemes and systems are under a legal obligation to issue similar orders. It is unbecoming of a government to be proven repeatedly wrong in the highest court of law. It signals illegitimate advances of the state which does not wish to be limited by the Constitution.

It must be noted that whenever circulars and letters of central and state government agencies have been challenged and contested they have consistently withdrawn their circulars and letters. After its circular making UID/Aadhaar number mandatory was challenged, University Grants Commission (UGC), Union Ministry of Human Resource Development has “clarified that any student who have applied or wishing to apply for scholarship/fellowship shall not be denied benefit thereof due to non availability of Aadhaar No./Card.” The revised public notice was issued on 14 September 2016.

Is It A Big Deal?

When the issue of admitted “urgency” was mentioned before the Supreme Court’s three-judge bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar, Justices N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud on 5 January 2017, instead of acting as per the written request made to the Chief Justice by the Chief Justice headed constitution bench of “appropriate strength” this bench of “inappropriate strength” refused to expedite the hearing of UID/Aadhaar cases challenging the denial of fundamental rights by the UIDAI and related schemes. The Chief Justice headed bench orally observed, “We are not inclined to give immediate hearing as there are limited resources but biometric data collection by private agencies is not a great idea.”

This bench of “inappropriate strength” also posed a seemingly innocent question: “Surveillance to what. Is it a big deal?” Given the fact that none of the three judges on the bench were ever part of the earlier benches that heard the biometric identification based UID/Aadhaar case, the observation are manifestly and frighteningly inconsistent because simple judicial reasoning makes it vividly clear that surveillance based on biometric data collection by private agencies is admittedly “not a great idea”.

The operation model overview for the Aadhaar authentication indicates that there is no provision to verify the written consent of any person to share biometric information. “Before implementing any biometric application, the Army must undertake a thorough legal analysis of exactly what it wants to do and where it wants to do it” concluded John D Woodward, Jr et al in “Legal Assessment: Legal concerns raised by the U.S. Army’s Use of Biometrics” published by RAND Corporation. This implies that besides application in defence, the civilian and defence application of biometric profiling in India also merits legal attention. As a consequence, biometric profiling for UID/aadhaar is indeed a big deal.

Meanwhile, on 6 April 2016 Jairam Ramesh, a former member of the Cabinet Committee on UIDAI related matters moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision to treat the Aadhaar bill as a money bill, which was passed during the budget session in March 2016. It was passed by overruling amendments moved in the Rajya Sabha against taking the money bill route to pass the Aadhaar bill. It is germane to note that the revised National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2013 was withdrawn from the Rajya Sabha on 3 March 2016. On the same day The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 was introduced as a Money Bill by Jaitley in Lok Sabha.

When the issue of violation of fundamental right to privacy was raised in the Lok Sabha, he said, “I am not concerned with the issue of privacy which is pending before the Supreme Court and whether it is a fundamental right or not, I am assuming let it be a fundamental right.” He contended, “Now under article 21, a person is entitled to his right of life and liberty which can be taken away by a procedure established by law. That is the Constitution. So privacy in an exceptional case by a fair, just and reasonable procedure can be taken away. That is the law as it stands. It is not an absolute right.” Several months have passed but the Court has not made it clear as yet as to whether it agrees with the Finance Minister.

Amidst the observations by this bench of “inappropriate strength”, the Supreme Court’s website continues to refer to the case as a “Five Judges Bench Matter” since October 2015 as per a written order of a five judge Constitution Bench of “appropriate strength” headed by Chief Justice which underlined that “there is some urgency in the matter”.

It is apparent that the advertising and public relations blitzkrieg unleashed by identification and surveillance technology vendors have clouded the minds of legal fraternity. The dangers of trusting such technological advances for determining social policies will consequent in a situation where “[A] warrant requirement will not make much difference to a society that, under the sway of a naive and discredited theory of genetic determinism, is willing to lock people away on the basis of their genes” among other adverse effects.

This entire issue is about denial of fundamental rights. It is not about contempt of court. It never was. When the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act and the 99th Constitutional Amendment assaulted judges’ autonomy and independence provided by Constitution, it was rejected by the five-judge Bench. The bench in a majority of 4:1 rejected the NJAC Act and the Constitutional Amendment as “unconstitutional and void.” Unmindful of the fact that judges are citizens first, the Court has not shown similar alacrity in safeguarding the fundamental rights although these inalienable rights pre-date Constitution. So far it has saved “basic structure” from an unlimited government, can it save it and the citizens from an unlimited database of present and future Indians? Hopefully, India has not become Kyrgyzstan as yet.

References

Eurasianet.org (2015): “Kyrgyzstan: Judge Fired for Opposing Government’s Fingerprint-Collection Drive”, 24 June, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/73996

European Court Of Human Rights (2008): Press release issued by the Registrar Grand Chamber Judgement S and MARPER v The United Kingdom, 4 December

The Lawphil Project Phillippines Law and Jurisprudence Databank (1998): http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/jul1998/gr_127685_1998.html

Gopal Krishna ([email protected]) is an activist with the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, New Delhi.

  • See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/12/web-exclusives/defying-fundamental-rights-impunity.html#sthash.L4kl7oSP.dpuf

Related posts

Rajasthan -Man alleges 8 teachers gang raped his minor daughter for 18 months #Vaw #WTFnews

Bikaner man alleges 8 teachers raped his minor daughter for 18 months
A man has alleged that the teachers also made a video of the act.

Bikaner, March 24

A man has alleged that his minor daughter was raped by eight teachers of a private school who also made a video of the act.The man alleged that the teachers allegedly blackmailed his daughter on the basis of the video and raped her for 18 months.

He alleged that his daughter fell ill and developed cancer-like symptopms, addiding that, the teachers also gave his daughter medicines to abort pregnancy.A women panel has been formed to look into the case.  

The alleged incident occurred in April 2015 and the FIR was registered on Friday after the girl’s father gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, police said. 

“The FIR lodged under Section 376-D (gang rape) of the IPC and relevant Sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act,” Nokha police station SHO Darjaram said.Earlier, one of the teachers had filed a case against four persons, including two cousins of the girl on March 20, for thrashing him.

Both the matters are being investigated, said the SHO.  http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/bikaner-man-alleges-8-teachers-raped-his-minor-daughter-for-18-months/382093.html

Related posts

India – 92 schemes linked to Aadhaar – although illegal #WTFnews

The long list of Aadhaar linked schemes

MORE-IN

The UID number, popularly known as Aadhaar, was envisaged as an end to fake or multiple identities

The UID number, popularly known as Aadhaar, was envisaged as an end to fake or multiple identities. However, the ambitious scheme has been facing controversies and successive governments have been silent on questions on the security of personal data collected by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether Aadhaar breaches the privacy of citizens.

The current NDA government has gone ahead with linking Aadhaar with various centrally sponsored schemes. It has maintained in courts that obtaining an Aadhaar number and using it to avail subsidy is voluntary.

The Aadhaar Act, tabled as a Money Bill and passed by the Lok Sabha, says its aim is to “ provide for targeted delivery of subsidies and services to individuals residing in India by assigning them unique identity numbers, called Aadhaar numbers,” and does not mention the word ‘mandatory.’ But it is now unavoidable, as over 50 schemes are linked to Aaadhar.

As proof of identity

Aadhaar is accepted as a valid identity proof by the Central and all State governments for availing services, including application for passport, opening of bank or insurance accounts, getting telephone and mobile phone connections, and buying rail tickets and availing concessions.

To verify electoral rolls

In order to keep a check on multiple entries in electoral rolls, the Election Commission has started a drive to include Aadhaar number along with Electors Photo Identity Card or voter Id card.

Also watch: principles for universal identification systems

(Graphic by T. Ramachandran)

In Provident fund

The Employees Provident Fund Organisation allots a Universal Account Number in order to facilitate smooth transfer of funds when an employee switches companies. By linking his/her Aadhaar to this UAN, the employee can transfer the PF amount directly to the saving account.

For filing I-T returns

For the past couple of years, the Icome Tax Department has enabled an Aadhaar-based mechanism to digitally sign and submit I-T returns online. This financial year, the government has made it mandatory to link Aadhaar with PAN to eliminate multiple PAN used by individuals. Holding more than one PAN per person is a criminal offence.

In Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana

This flagship scheme launched by the Modi government aims to provide free LPG connection to below poverty line (BPL) families. The scheme uses Aadhaar to verify the claim of the beneficiary and to transfer the subsidy amount.

For digital payments

The Unified Payment Interface and the recently launched BHIM app support Aadhaar based money transfer. The IDFC Bank has recently rolled out Aadhaar Pay, where the customer’s fingerprint is used to pay the merchant.

In Direct Benefit Transfer

The first major rollout of Aadhaar based service was Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), a mechanism to hand over the subsidy and welfare amount directly to the beneficiary’s bank account, instead of the existing practice of giving banker’s cheque or cash.

As of today 92 centrally-sponsored schemes from 19 Ministries are implemented through DBT. The prominent among them are PAHAL for LPG subsidy, cash transfer of food subsidy and MGNREGA.

Others are:

Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme

Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme

Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme

Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna (Grameen)

BSR Doctoral Fellowship in Sciences

Dr. S. Radharkrishnan Post Doctoral Fellowship In Humanities

Emeritus Fellowship

Kothari Post Doctoral Fellowship in Sciences

National Research Professorship

Ishan Uday Scholarship Scheme for North Eastern Region

National Eligibility Test-Junior Research. Fellowship

P.G. Indira Gandhi Scholarship for Single Girl Child

P.G. Scholarship for Professional Courses for SC or ST candidates

P.G. Scholarship for University Rank Holders

PG Scholarship for GATE qualified PG Students

PMSSS for J and K Students admitted in rest of India

Post Doctoral.Fellowship for Women

Post- Doctoral Fellowship for SC or ST Candidates

Pragati Scholarship for girls Diploma Institutes

Pragati Scholarship for girls in Degree Colleges

QIP for faculty deputed for PhD studies at QIP centers

Saksham Scholarship for differently abled students of Degree College

Saksham scholarship for differently abled students of Diploma Institutes

Scholarship To Universities /College Students

Swami Vivekananda Single Girl Child Scholarship

Artistes Pension Scheme and Welfare Fund

Finacial assistance for the preservation and development of Himalayan Cultural Heritage for Himalaya

Financial Assistance for the Cultural Function Grant SchemeCFGS

Financial Assistance for the development of Buddhist / Tibetian Organizations

Financial Assistance to Cultural Organization

International Cultural Relation

Production Grant

Repertory Grant Scheme

Scheme for the Award of Fellowship to outstanding persons in the field of Culture

Scheme for Scholarships to Young Artistes in different cultural fields

Tagore National Fellowship for Cultural Research

Artistes Pension Scheme and Welfare Fund

Finacial assistance for the preservation and development of Himalayan Cultural Heritage for Himalaya

Financial Assistance for the Cultural Function Grant Scheme

Financial Assistance for the development of Buddhist / Tibetian Organizations

Financial Assistance to Cultural Organization

International Cultural Relation

Production Grant

Repertory Grant Scheme

Scheme for the Award of Fellowship to outstanding persons in the field of Culture

Scheme for Scholarships to Young Artistes in different cultural fields

Tagore National Fellowship for Cultural Research

Maternity Benefit Programme

Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage

National Means Cum Merit Scholarship

National Scheme For Incentive For The Girl Child For Secondary Education

Maulana Azad National Fellowship

Merit Cum Means Scholarship For Minorities

Post Matric Scholarship Scheme For Minorities

Pre Matric Scholarship Scheme For Minorities

Housing Subsidy To Beedi Workers

Housing Subsidy To Iron/Manganese/Chrome Ore Workers

Housing Subsidy To Lime Stone and Dolomite LSDM Workers

Rehabilitation Assistance

Scholarship To The Children of Lime Stone and Dolomite LSDM Workers

Scholarship To The Children of Beedi Workers

Scholarship To The Children of Cine Workers

Scholarship To The Children of Iron/Manganese/Chrome Ore Workers

Stipend to children in the special schools under the National Child Labour Project

Stipend to Differently Abled Candidates under Scheme of Vocational Rehabilitation Centre

Stipend To Trainees Under The Scheme Of Welfare Of SC/ST Job Seekers

Post-matric Scholarship for Persons with Disabilities

Pre-matric scholarship for Persons with disabilities

Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for students

Scholarship for Top Class Education

Janani Suraksha Yojana

Aam Aadmi Bima Yojana

Life Insurance-linked with Jan Dhan Yojana

Assistance for procurement of modified scooter

Assistance for purchase of Tool Kits

Assistance for treatment of cancer and dialysis

Assistance for treatment of listed serious diseases

Interest subsidy on home loan upto max 1 lakh

Prime Minister Scholarship Scheme

Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy

Related posts