The case for easing our identity proof insistence
PremiumIt’s prudent of India’s government to have vaccinated 8.7 million people without Aadhaar ID cards. Let us extend the principle of full inclusion to cover the state delivery of essentials
It almost came to be seen as a fixation of governance, the requirement of an Aadhaar proof-of-identity for sundry interactions with the state. In spite of a judicial pushback, biometric records had assumed such an asymmetric role in our lives that their use as tickets for covid jabs was no surprise. So it’s a relief that India’s government has vaccinated 8.7 million people without asking for identification, as it informed the Supreme Court on Monday. An Aadhaar number is not a must to register oneself on Co-Win, our website for vaccine allotment; while eight alternative documents could be used to get a shot, this ID rule was relaxed for “sadhus and saints of all religions", those leading nomadic lives, inmates of prisons and mental-health institutions, folks in rehab and roadside alms-seekers, apart from other identified individuals aged above 18 with none of the nine identity certificates. This was a prudent exemption, given our urgency to immunize the country and quell the pandemic. With 1.7 billion doses given overall, our aim has been to maximize coverage. Prudence apart, the inclusion of those who are off the national identity grid, even if by their own choice, also happens to be backed by a sound principle.
As in the case of those who renounce the material world, often casting off their birth or family names for spiritual pursuits, many others among us might have opted for reclusive lives with such loose ties with the state apparatus that they may not have anything to establish who they are for officials to check. Then there would be those who remain clueless about worldly events and systems for a variety of reasons. Odd as this may seem in a hyper-linked age of online chatter, a country as populous as ours must surely have large numbers in all those brackets, and then some. A constitutional assurance of lifestyle liberty, coupled with the public responsibility we bear for everyone’s well-being, would require us to ensure that nobody is deprived of access to basic provisions of health and sustenance. In times of crisis, especially, identity insistence must not get in the way of aid distribution.
Though personal safety displays an obvious overlap with the public interest in vaccine delivery, we should extend the same principle to all food handouts. Granted, this could result in leakages, plugging which was a key Aadhaar goal. Yet, this would be a small price to pay for universal nutrition security. In many welfare states abroad, anyone asking for such support is assumed to be in need of it and ID-free dole-outs ensure nobody goes hungry. We could also go beyond beneficiary lists. Should a large-scale heist of food supplies ensue, smaller but more frequent rations could be explored. By similar logic, the proposed health ID cards aimed at offering online access to a central database of our medical reports should remain optional in practice as much as theory. Our National Digital Health Ecosystem, which is scheduled for a rollout next fiscal year, must not end up erecting healthcare barriers for those who opt out of it. Data firewalls will likely be installed against hackers, but patients who are uncomfortable with the storage of their health details on such a network must not come to suffer for it. Aadhaar was touted as ‘voluntary’ before it became a must-have, bit by bit, for a variety of purposes. An opt-in health data facility that is subject to such mission creep may fail to generate the confidence needed for its success. Technology allows us to verify identities accurately, but its rigid use could have ill effects. Let’s ease up.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!