Would you consider it an important identifier even if there were other non-intrusive options such as a ration card or voter identity card?
Many mandatory “reforms” that the States have to implement as part of e-governance to be eligible for funds under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) have raised alarm among civil society groups, but the proposed biometric identification system for slum-dwellers has generated the most heat.
For reference
Under this system, a person’s fingerprints and some other physiological characteristic, usually the retina of the eye is recorded, stored in a database and put away for future reference.
This identification system has been recommended by the Centre as part of Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP), which envisions housing rights and basic amenities to the urban poor. In this, certain physiological characteristics of entire families of economically weaker sections are being recorded so as to “create a database.”
Process started
Activists brand this identification system proposed only for slum-dwellers as “discriminatory” and “intrusive”. The process has been started in five slums in the city, including Jasma Bhavan slum in Austin town Sampangiramanagar slum and Kalyani slum.
“When there are other identification mechanisms such as voter identity card and ration card, why are people living in slums being subjected to this? Why is it important to create a database of only slum-dwellers?” asks Isaac Arul Selva of Slum Jagatthu.
He likens it to the practice of the British identifying and branding certain tribes as “criminal” during the Raj.
Kshithij Urs of Action Aid says: “We do not yet have a law that protects the information created in such a database. It could be dangerous if misused.”
Misuse of information has been one of the most important sociological concerns raised worldwide about the use of biometric strategies.
“Biometric identification was recommended as a fool-proof measure to ensure that only beneficiaries gain from the housing projects,” Jawaid Akthar, managing director, Karnataka Urban Infrastructure Development and Finance Corporation (KUIDFC), the nodal agency for JNNURM projects in Karnataka told The Hindu.
This was also to ensure that the urban poor did not sell their houses before the lock-in period of 20 years ended, he added.
Activists place this form of identification in the larger context of the “anti-poor” aspect of the JNNURM.
‘Why the restraint?’
At a seminar on the various aspects of the mission held on Friday, R. Padmini of Civic Bangalore said: “Why should the urban poor not sell their houses? If they get a better job in some other city, why should they hold onto this property? When other sections of the society can sell their property when they want to, why should the urban poor be restrained?”
Autor(en)/Author(s): Swathi Shivanand
Quelle/Source: The Hindu, 27.10.2007
