Responsibility is the price for freedom

Freedom exists only within a framework of rules. Freedom is simply an opportunity to find a definition for yourself, a true, authentic individuality, and a joy in making the world around you a little better, a little more beautiful. Excise and enjoy your freedom in true sense. 

• Like so many things in life, freedom is not free. We cannot justifiably have one without the other. The more comprehensive and diversified the social order, the greater the responsibility and the freedom of the individual. 
• Freedom is inseparable from responsibility. If I have the freedom to think, it is my responsibility to think positively. If I have the freedom to speak, it is my responsibility to speak properly and meaningfully. If I have the freedom to act, it is my responsibility to act correctly. I have no right to excise my freedom to breach other’s privacy. 
• If you don't want to take responsibility, you can't have freedom either. If you shun responsibility, you have to accept slavery in some way or other.
• Freedom of choice which means freedom to choose, to act in this way or that way, to do good and evil. Every individual’s freedom is limited by the others. 
• Nothing can satisfy a human need and greed (be it for freedom as well). Extreme freedom results in catastrophe and responsibilities prevent it.
• Those who do not have enough freedom will inevitably crave more of it. 
• Freedom is just not limited to speech, thought, follow a particular religion etc but freedom from fear, anxiety, worry etc are also equally important. Freedom is an amazing thing, but as with most amazing things, too much of it can be more than you bargained for. Especially if you’re not prepared to handle it.
• There is an important dimension to freedom that is often forgotten: freedom of will. 
• Our freedom may be constrained and our choices limited, in the moment when we choose, we experience freedom. 
• True freedom is closely linked to self-control. Only a self-disciplined person can decide to do something and accomplish it. True freedom is the freedom to follow one’s conscience and maintain one’s personal integrity. This is freedom of will. It leads to more of a sense of liberation and fulfillment. 
• The joy of freedom is not only to be able to choose, but to be able to choose well—to choose the right and the good, and be responsible for the outcome rather than blaming.

People like freedom because it gives them a sense of mastery over things and people. They dislike responsibility because it constrains them from satisfying their desires. Every thought, word and deed in our lives shapes our character. We create our own character through the decisions we make.

Read the source article

Aadhaar data insecure

  

The Tribune dated Jan 4, 2018

Read the source article

Aadhaar data and its insecurity and absence of robust privacy protection laws, linking Aadhaar to all bank accounts etc can become catastrophe. Government has no right to expose citizens and their money to risks of losing.

Aadhaar linking should be restricted only to Government welfare schemes & subsidies and at the worst to mobile phones. Nothing more than that. Individual financial data must never be accessible to unauthorized entities under any circumstances.

Even though UIDAI assures Aadhaar data is fully safe, it is not really safe as glitches exist and not fool proof. Robust privacy laws must restrict individual data and unbridled access to database. Especially banks and financial institutional data accessing by unauthorized parties must be eliminated. Any financial loss arising out of unauthorised accessing of data must be borne by UIDAI/GoI/Bank only and customer must not be subjected to any loss or inconvenience.

Aadhaar makes citizens more vulnerable

Last year Delhi Police busted an ISI spy ring and found that Mehmood Akhtar had an Aadhaar card naming him as Mehboob Rajput. In May this year, the Central Crime Branch found that three Pakistanis had obtained Aadhaar cards in Bengaluru through a middleman for Rs 100 each. More recently, Zeebo Asalina, an Uzbek national arrested in Orissa, had an Aadhaar card naming her as Duniya Khan.

• The perception that security agencies may have a better chance of nabbing potential terrorists if all mobile connections are verified using Aadhaar is flawed. Since Aadhaar cards were based on forged documents and UIDAI does not conduct any verification by itself, it retains the flaws of these documents and is not ‘fraud-resistant’. In fact, once they have Aadhaar, things may get easier for potential terrorists, given the incorrect perception that it is foolproof.
• Paper IDs are not good for privacy since they can be reused for other purposes. But Aadhaar is worse, because once data is shared with hundreds of third parties, it is no longer secure. 
• Electronic KYC is cheaper for telecom operators and banks, it is costlier for citizens. The cost of the loss of personal information is much higher than the benefit of collecting it. UIDAI has no control once data leaves its system via eKYC, which has a tick-box approach to consent and no checks thereafter.
• The risk of personal information leaks increases with more services getting linked to Aadhaar due to security vulnerabilities, or sheer incompetence of the government or third parties.
• Disclosure of Aadhaar numbers is illegal as per Section 29 (4) of the Aadhaar Act.
• Whereas RTI Act makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes. This is conflict with Aadhaar Act.
• Biometrics are the least secure form of authentication. They can be cloned from photographs, and you leave fingerprints on every glass of water you pick up.
• Estonia had to suspend its digital ID cards due to cybersecurity related vulnerabilities. Spain is facing similar issues. 
• The government’s cavalier attitude towards privacy that privacy cannot be at the cost of innovation indicates its willingness to put citizens’ personal safety at risk: that your privacy is a price that GoI is willing to pay for making it easier for businesses to be built around your data.
• Data for millions of people has already been compromised by the government, the allegation that critics are “alarmists” and “motivated” is a tactic to divert attention from badly designed architecture, execution mistakes, security failures and the yet-to be-addressed risks.
• While there are some benefits that might accrue from customisation of thousands of services that might otherwise not have had your data, a government that forcibly takes sensitive and personal information from you, and a court that has allowed this to happen despite appeals to stop it, has acted against you and 1.3 billion others.
• All your data, linked to a single ID and accessible to the government under unspecified ‘national security’ considerations, without sufficient checks and balances and judicial oversight, is also dangerous in the hands of a future government that might look to retain power by any means necessary. 
• Mass surveillance for which Aadhaar is an enabler, is an unnecessary and disproportionate infringement of rights, and dangerous for democracy. 
• With Aadhaar numbers littered all over the web, anyone can create a dossier of personal information by finding and joining datasets bases with the Aadhaar number and hence stating that Aadhaar is not a secret or confidential number is misleading and dangerous.
• Publishing a person’s caste, Aadhaar number, or mobile number or emailids is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual and serves no public interest but the leaked info can also cause financial loss. It opens doors for fraudsters to perform attacks on unsuspecting individuals.
• Publishing of last four digits of Aadhaar number only might not satisfy the provisions of both RTI and the Aadhaar Acts. Publishing Aadhaar number, full or partial, on the open web will put too many unsuspecting people at risk. It’s illegal for UIDAI to pass the buck and act innocent about data leaks. It needs to get across to users of Aadhaar data to follow the law or be held responsible.
• Instead of blaming the transparency requirements of the RTI, UIDAI must be pressurised to enforce its agreements with its partners. Whether you call it a data leak or not, doesn’t reduce the harm done if the authorities continue to publish Aadhaar details on the open web.

Government can't make citizens safer by making them more vulnerable.

The issue is not about Aadhaar as a tool in identification, but of linking it with everything under the sun is gross violation of privacy by government. While linking Aadhaar as remedy to plug leakages of government subsidies is well taken but forcefully linking it to all IDs is as imprudent as having one password for all your transactions which exponentially increases vulnerability. There would be little remedy to assaults by fraudsters on systems that are indiscriminately cross-linked. In the absence of robust data security environment, stringent privacy laws and meticulous penal agreements for any kind of data leakage or misusing, Government has no business to make Aadhaar linking mandatory to all citizen IDs and exposing them to security threats and unknown & unmitigated financial losses.

Chest thumping will come back to haunt us

• Any monetary economist would say don't do it (demonetisation) until you have all the money printed.
• If you take poll of monetary economists, they would tell you that on the day you actually do it, you should be prepared to replace as much currency as needed for transactions. Otherwise it will cause a reduction of economic activity.
• Monetary economists would say, be ready to replace on day one everything that was used for transactions. A significant fraction of that, not all 86%, but enough so that anybody who wanted money will be able to take it out from ATMs.
• There are channels through which government can by pass RBI legally (like 1978 demonetisation ordinance).
• Ultimately if Governor disagrees - Dr. YV Reddy had a interesting response to what he would have done! - He said he would have gone to the hospital and then resigned on health grounds. Now some people can't go to the hospital they look the picture of health.
• All bank accounts could be linked to Aadhaar, keeping in mind the privacy issues. There are privacy issues and there are issues of tax collection. So long as you make sure that every revenue officer cannot start fishing in that database and lot of it is automated and you can only go into it when those suspicious transactions are flagged and ordinary citizen's privacy is protected. That is the way to reduce the flow.
• We have to recognise that we are dealing with the government employees as they are, not how we wish they would be. The reality is that there is some corruption in the government also. To give license to some areas of government (like tax officers) without checks and balances could enhance corruption.
• If you look at digitisation, we saw a blip up and then looked down after the stress period was over.
• India was growing at about 7.5 to 8 per cent at the point of demonetisation. We have come down substantially and some of this has been because of demonetisation. The world economy is going stronger than at this time last year and in that sense we should be going up with the tide and should have moved up with the growth. In fact, it has moved down. There are three factors: one is the stress in the banking system and the bad loan situation, the second is the demonetisation shock and the third is the anticipation of the goods and services tax (GST). At this point, our growth is not anything to write home about. Hopefully, these are temporary factors, but certainly we have to make sure that our business people feel more confident that there are no more surprises.
• I don’t think the RBI has been undermined, because ultimately this decision belongs to the government. 
• There has always been a tension between the finance ministry and the RBI. The finance ministry likes to believe that the RBI is one of its organs, and the RBI correctly believes that it is a Central bank and not just another regulator who is at the beck and call of the ministry’s bureaucrats. The tension about this is partly because the position of the RBI governor hasn’t been clearly established within the system. On the one hand, you have chief ministers saying ‘sir’ to you, and on the other, you have secretaries claiming that they have authority over you.
• Constant bickering is not particularly good. It takes away from you the time you have to devote to more important things.
• I was trying to say, ‘Let’s not be complacent’. We have problems; our real problems start when we thump ourselves on the chest and say how well we are doing and then don’t pay attention to the fact that there is so much more to be done. These things, like the thumping of the chest, will come back to haunt you. Let others praise you, let others give you kudos. But don’t keep boasting, because the media will take it up for a little while, but investors remember. My point was—here’s some good stuff but we have to be careful that we are not complacent. And it was taken here as me being derisive; that was clearly not the intent. We have to be much less boastful and much more focused on the work that needs to be done.
• Our future, that this is the India you want to build, not an intolerant India.
• As a public servant, you also have a public responsibility. 
• You can’t stay in the job if you have serious differences with the government. 
• When there is an environment in the public that has not been created by the government—but it emerges—then you have a duty to say that this is not the way we should go as a country.
• There was a discussion of the Enforcement Directorate looking at over-invoicing, which was rampant. Why didn’t we go after that? That was very easy to catch.
• There was no obligation on the government’s part to extend my tenure, and similarly, there was no obligation on my part to stay on. The University of Chicago was not the constraint.

Chest thumping will come back to haunt us ... Raghuram Rajan

Privacy is a fundamental right

• A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on August 24 unanimously ruled that right to privacy is “intrinsic to life and liberty” and is inherently protected under the various fundamental freedoms enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. SC overruled previous judgments on the privacy issue that ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right.
• Justice Chandrachud in his judgment for himself, Chief Justice Khehar, R.K. Agrawal and S. Abdul Nazeer said that privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality. Natural rights like privacy are inalienable because they are inseparable from the human personality. To live is to live with dignity. Privacy with its attendant values assures dignity to the individual and it is only when life can be enjoyed with dignity can liberty be of true substance. Privacy ensures the fulfillment of dignity.
• The judgement also stated that - Like other rights which form part of the fundamental freedoms protected by Part III, including the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, privacy is not an absolute right. A law which encroaches upon privacy will have to withstand the touchstone of permissible restrictions on fundamental rights. In the context of Article 21 an invasion of privacy must be justified on the basis of a law which stipulates a procedure which is fair, just and reasonable. 
• The Union government had argued that privacy is a common law right. The government argued that right to privacy is not expressly included in the Constitution as the founding fathers rejected or jettisoned the idea of inclusion of privacy as a fundamental right. The centre had termed privacy as a "vague and amorphous" right which cannot be granted primacy to deprive poor people of their rights to life, food and shelter.
• The earlier Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi rejected suggestions that Indians could refuse to provide their iris scans or fingerprints to the government, telling a court "the concept of absolute right over one's body was a myth".
• The judgment will have a crucial bearing on the government’s Aadhaar scheme that collects personal details, biometrics to identify beneficiaries for accessing social benefits and government welfare scheme.
• A bunch of petitions were filed in the Supreme Court in 2015 challenging Aadhaar as a breach of privacy, informational self-determination and bodily integrity. The petitioners argued that Aadhaar enrolment was the means to a “Totalitarian State” and an open invitation for personal data leakage. 
• The government claimed Aadhaar was a panacea to end corruption in public distribution, money laundering and terror funding.
• Attorney general K K Venugopal had argued that right to privacy cannot be a fundamental right has now welcomed the SC decision. He said that whatever the 9-judge bench says is the correct law.
• Three days ago, PM Modi hailed the SC judgement on triple talak as "historic" and said it grants equality to Muslim women. Today on Privacy rights judgement of SC, he maintained stoic silence so far. He is yet to respond. Why?
• Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said that the apex court has accepted the government’s argument that privacy is a fundamental right, but it’s not an absolute right but will be subjected to restrictions which will be fair, just and reasonable. He blamed that the privacy matter went to the Supreme Court because the UPA government brought about Aadhaar without a law. It is too late to contend that privacy will not be a fundamental right.
• Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad made a somersault by welcoming the judgement but said should have "reasonable" restrictions. 
• Mukul Rohatgi said that the government should not have diluted their stand in court because the inclusion or exclusion of fundamental rights is only the proviso of Parliament. It is a very unsatisfactory resolution of the dispute. His view is that the framers of the constitution did not intend to make privacy a fundamental right. He said “The fact is, we haven’t won this case. The eight-judge bench of 1954 has been overruled and the Aadhaar issue has been left unresolved. So where is the question of winning?” Had he still been in office as Attorney General, he would have admitted that the government had lost the case.

Today's verdict is a major setback for the government, which had argued that the constitution does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right. The verdict however does not comment on whether the government's demand for Aadhaar to be linked to all financial transactions amounts to an infringement of privacy. There are fears that the data could be misused by a government that argued Indians have no right to privacy.

Aadhaar has its uses, but it is also an instrument of control and manipulation. It must be only optional, not mandatory. Aadhaar had already violated the privacy rights with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. Ambedkar's fears of abuse of constitution without amending it are coming true in Modi's India. In a democracy, ruled by majority, it is the duty of majority to uphold the rights & dignity of minorities. Ambedkar also remarked that democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic. Unfortunately Modi & co believes that minorities must toe line with majoritarian wishes with no individual rights etc.

Read the exhaustive article on the judgement

Is privacy a fundamental right?

The government is pushing for Aadhaar but critics say it violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people. The Centre has maintained that right to privacy is not a fundamental right and citizens are not guaranteed the right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. The petitioner’s counsel in the Aadhaar case, has compared the situation to one under a totalitarian state where people were being forcefully tagged and tracked by the Centre. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge constitution bench would revisit its rulings that said the right to privacy was not a fundamental right and then hear petitions against the 12-digit biometric identity number.

• An eight-judge bench in 1954 and also by a six-judge bench in 1962 ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right in the constitutional provisions. Textually it is correct today that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Even freedom of press is not expressly stated but courts has interpreted it.
• Whether there is any “right to privacy” guaranteed under our Constitution or not and if such a right exists, what is the source and what are the contours of such a right as there is no express provision in the constitution.
• Supreme Court in case after case realised that the rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised. Privacy is crucial in digital age. A democracy cannot exist without the Right to Privacy.
• Without right to privacy, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India and more particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 would be denuded of vigour and vitality.
• Privacy can reside in several articles. Lack of privacy can have a chilling effect, triggering freedom of speech protections under Article 19(2). The question of protecting privacy could not depend on first determining the location of the right to privacy. History teaches us that without privacy, the consequences are unimaginable.
• The relationship of the right to privacy with Aadhaar enrolment is what complicates everything. The government is pushing for Aadhaar, saying it is necessary to plug leakages in subsidy schemes and to ensure benefits reach those targeted but critics say the move violates privacy, is vulnerable to data breaches and helps government spy on people.
• If the object of Aadhaar is smoothly functioning government benefit schemes, why give law enforcement agencies or indeed anyone else access to the database at all?
• The Aadhaar Bill has been passed with no public consultation about the privacy safeguards necessary for such a database and no provision for public or independent oversight. The rights to liberty and freedom of expression cannot survive if the right to privacy is compromised.
• Allowing Aadhaar to go ahead unchecked in the manner, seeking linking aadhaar to almost every transaction and aspect in life, is effectively reducing the citizen into a 12-digit number and transforming the country into a concentration camp for the citizens.
• Aadhaar has had an invasive and controversial presence well before the government’s attempt to legitimise it. Our Attorney General (funded by our taxes) has argued that we have no right to privacy. Attorney General KK Venugopal argument that the framers of India’s Constitution “consciously omitted” privacy as a fundamental right is his imagination in wrong direction. Any version of the Aadhaar Bill would have been subjected to close scrutiny. The Bill was deliberately mislabelled as a money bill to avoid scrutiny by Rajya Sabha creating even more suspicion.
• Privacy is an amorphous term which is not absolute and cannot prevent the State from making laws imposing reasonable restrictions on citizens. Attempting to define the right to privacy may cause more harm than good.
• In order to recognise privacy as a right, it would have to be defined first. But this would be a near impossible task as an element of privacy pervaded all fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
• Right to privacy is a pre-existing natural right which is inherent in the Constitution, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. The right to privacy is recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The concept of privacy is embedded in liberty as well as a person's honour.
• Even if the court now finally finds that Aadhaar violates the right to privacy, the damage is already done with the vast majority of the population already enrolled, their information already held in insecure databases, and linked to public and private services. We should all, of course, be praying that the court finds that there are 40 years of consistent judicial support for a fundamental right to privacy, and this cannot be taken away by the government so callously.

Privacy is essential to autonomy and the protection of human dignity. Privacy enables us to create boundaries and protect ourselves from unwarranted interference in our lives. Privacy protects us from arbitrary and unjustified use of power by states, companies and other actors. It lets us regulate what can be known about us and done to us, while protecting us from others who may wish to exert control. Privacy is a fundamental human right. Over 130 countries have constitutional statements regarding the protection of privacy. Despite international human rights law, it’s all too common that privacy is violated by states and companies. While we should continue to fight for our privacy under the law, the best thing we can do as users to who value our right to anonymity, is to use internet tools. 

My View:
This BJP/NDA government headed by Modi by aggressively promoting expensive cashless transactions with artificial cash shortage is just like sales chief of those companies rather than leader of the nation. He has no respect for rights of citizens. His aim is to increase revenues not by promoting economic activity but by tracking almost all transactions and arm twisting people and collecting more taxes for funding his trophy projects and worthless ideas while leaving poor & peasants in distress. Can you imagine leader of largest democracy in the world arguing in Supreme Court that citizens, who elected him, have no right to privacy except what ever is granted by his stupid brains? His thinking doesn't understand that privacy is fundamental right of humans and doesn't require any constitution or laws for recognizing this.

Modi unveiling cash restrictions and police raj

Cash is one form of wealth like gold, house, land, bank deposits, stocks, bonds etc. It is citizen's right to hold his wealth in what ever form he wishes. In fact no sane person will hoard cash or in bank deposits with inflation corrected bank deposits yielding negative returns. Prudent person will either invest cash or rotate it to earn more returns. In the recent hearing of Jayalalitha's disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court Bench observed that merely possessing assets disproportionate to known income does not amount to corruption unless the source of that income is illegal.

Our Indian banks has of late became precariously unsafe with NPA's increasing manifold leading to downgrading of ratings to a notch above junk status. No prudent person will keep his wealth in bank deposits. However India has many weak, old and vulnerable persons who hold their wealth in the form of bank deposits. RBI's deposit guarantee is limited to just Rs. One lakh per person. In the absence of returns & safety, government coercing its citizens to maintain their wealth in bank deposits with negative yields is nothing but cruelty.

Cashless transactions is another fraud. In a country with 40% illiteracy and 80% internet banking illiteracy compelling electronic payments without reliable infrastructure, robust privacy laws, unbearable transaction charges and high level of frauds is nothing but enabling corporate's flourish at the expense of poor & needy and in violation of fundamental rights.

No one in the world pays taxes willingly and smilingly. Tax evasion in India is primarily due to unreasonable high tax regime, uncourteous and blatantly corrupt tax administration with umpteen loopholes deliberately meant for corrupt activities. Make taxes reasonable and taxmen citizen friendly, infrastructure reliable,  robust privacy laws protecting citizen rights, and cashless transactions affordable and people will use them as they see benefits. Without these in place, pressurizing citizens compromising their freedom & rights will prove counter productive.

Most of the cash wealth is getting rotated in informal economy which contributed 45% of GDP and employs 90% of people who are mostly less educated, less skilled and under qualified who are otherwise not employable in formal sector. Migrating them into tax compliant formal sector is slow process and government must promote the same with incentives and creating awareness rather than sudden changes of laws and unleashing taxmen & policemen with long sticks.

Almost all black money hoarders are from cities & towns and none from rural areas. Enacting laws which make all these men criminals and taxmen chasing them doesn't produce any positive results except for publicizing the government's efforts to fight corruption which any way doesn't yield desired results.

The recent demonetization has diverted large portion of working capital of informal economy into banking channels. Deprivation of working capital has crippled informal economy, which hitherto was booming since a decade, with millions losing livelihood and returning to their villages, and those who survived are making earnings at half level. No announcement was made by government to provide them with working capital infusing arrangements. Informal economy and formal economy are so much interdependent on each other, formal economy is likely get affected with a time lag of two quarters. The devastating effects and unintended consequences will surface incessantly for next two years and nothing can be done except dazing at them.

Modi's restrictions on cash at Rs. 3 lakh level will do no good to economy except it seems to increase tax compliance. Govt might get higher income tax collections but overall reduced economic activity will result in indirect taxes crumbling, offsetting gains and overall tax collections looking southward. On other hand increasing government will have disastrous effects like citizen harassment, legal entanglements, increase in corruption, ease of doing business looking southward, FDI's reduction and ratings remaining at junk level will do no good to any one. Authoritarian type of decisions will yield quick results in dictator ruled small countries but while doing no good, will run into legal tangles in large democracy like India.

Modi has ignited 'spiraling down' of economy with his senseless, authoritarian, illegal actions destroying institutions like RBI, without even pretense of process of law and now he has no 'magic wand' to control it or stop it and normalization is two years away and in the mean time common man is the casualty.

All dirty politics!!


My View:
Modi badly managed Indian economy during past 30 months, despite favorable crude oil prices and retaining 85% in the form of increased duties, and growth of over 7.5% highest in the world, inflation fairly in limits of below 8% mainly due to his industrialist friends defaulting on bank loans with NPA's rising alarmingly manifold and crippling banks with no funds even for their normal operations and not taking any solid action against willful defaulters despite warnings. Even in 4th budget revenue deficit is at unacceptably more than 3% of GDP. He is under pressure from World Bank and rating agencies to set house in order and unleashed quack advised senseless demonetization for quick benefits of Rs. 4-5 lakh crores as disclosed in affidavit filed in Supreme Court. With deposits exceeding 97.5% of cash in circulation his scheme failed miserably and is dramatizing with cashless transactions and as lone crusader against corruption, which requires focused efforts continuously for few decades.  In a hurry to make quick financial and political gains Modi is resorting to half baked actions with loop holes which will end up in fiascoes and citizen harassment. He is not bothered about long term national gains but focusing on the immediate political mileage needed to win UP, Punjab elections in the aftermath of demonetization pain inflicted on rural masses and urban poor. Attempting to manage country's finances in this botched fashion will only end up horribly both for people and for himself, with no gains whatsoever.

Cashless economy will be a disaster

Cash is empowerment, freedom, privacy & security.

Cashless society is at least 25 years away for fulfilment of following requirements:

• Basic education
• Banking education
• Technology education
• Smartphone requirement
• Electricity for charging
• Internet or 3G connection
• Net Banking wareness
• App to be downloaded
• Knowledge about secure operation
• Privacy and security cyberlaws
• Grievance redressal knowledge
• Awareness of perils
• Cost Benefit analysis
• Above all mindset

Fully cashless society would mean the end of privacy . There would be a digital trail of every action you take through your purchases and transfers. In the absence of robust privacy laws and data protection in India, it is a big worry every week as we hear stories of hacking.

A fully cashless society could mean the end of dissent. The government can use any data it gathers against you. Even if you commit no crime, there is much you may be embarrassed by. What's more, they could make any opponent a pauper with one keystroke, freezing your bank account while they investigate alleged misdeeds. Just the fact that they have this power could have a chilling effect on dissent. Would you want government men have that much power on you for presumptive reasons?

It is a myth that an advanced society must necessarily be cashless. In Germany more than 80% of transactions are in cash, as citizens safeguard their privacy and freedom. In the US, 45% of transactions are in cash. Even in advanced, wealthy & small countries like Norway & Singapore cashless transaction are just 60% only. In India, 600 million people have no bank account, and less than 20% of all Indians have a smartphone. Internet penetration is iffy. Trying to make India cashless is akin to putting a bullock cart in an F1 race.

Technologies, like any App, imperil our privacy. But those actions are voluntary, and we can choose to avoid them. That is the crux. Coercion towards cashlessness with deprivation of currency implicit in the demonetization is ridiculous. A cashless society would only be good if we evolve towards it, not if we are forced into it.

Digital payments involve transaction costs, are unreliable because of infrastructure issues. After demonetization who would trust an Indian banks and RBI? The beneficiaries of forced cashlessness are not consumers, but vested interests like banks and payment companies. This might be the largest redistribution of wealth from poor to rich in the history of humanity.

When the demonetization was announced, Modi & BJP said it was meant to attack black money and counterfeit currency. Once it became clear that those reasons were nonsense, they tried to change the narrative into a cashless economy. Within a fortnight of that, they are already backtracking and saying they meant `less cash' instead of `cashless'. The truth is that the demonetization was a humanitarian disaster that is crippling our economy, and no matter how many times Modi and gang try to rationalize it, it cannot be done. These men will stop trying when they cannot justify any more, they will distract.

The best government is that governs least.

My View:

Anything by force undermines individual freedom & rights guaranteed by constitution. When people see reason, benefits, security, affordability etc they themselves will adopt to cashless transactions voluntarily. Until then it is only a commodity with a price and government has no right to promote any body's business on its citizens forcibly. 

How government will enforce tax compliance is altogether different issue. This is no right way.

Cashless Transactions: Perils

Modi government had failed completely to provide replacement new cash consequent to demonetization of Rs. 500 & Rs.1000 notes on Nov 8, 2016. Instead of accepting the blunder and plunder, Modi relentlessly campaigning for cashless transactions as solution to cash shortage with an eye on increasing government tax revenues is a cruel joke on gullible Indians. Cash in circulation shrinkage is a hidden agenda item. These have devastating effect on overall economy and impacts employment growth.

Cashless transactions exposes innocent citizens to its perils of cheating and hacking apart from hidden costs ultimately payable them apart from privacy rights violation. The sudden push to cashless economy via demonetization is an arm twisting tactic in contrast to promoting technology for comfort & convenience. Anything by force is despicable in a civilized and democratic society.

The perils of cashless transactions are many:

• Data security breaches.
• Chips embedded on the cards reduces fraud on swipe machines, but it's not clear how much.
• Chips embedded on the cards don't help prevent online frauds.
• PoS machines are expensive and unaffordable for small traders.
• Every transaction will be loaded with 0.75%-2% charges payable either by merchant or customer.
• Going cashless means all your purchases are traceable and your privacy is up for grabs. 
• When governments have information they may attempt to use it in ways that are not fully vetted by due process.
• Since electronic payments can be traced, but constant government monitoring could turn everyone into a potential suspect, creating distrust between government and citizens.
• There are a number of cultural rites that we use cash for today, small donations, tips, religious contributions, and gifts. It's a lot more meaningful to give cash than a piece of plastic.
• It will be a fallacy to equate the ability of ordinary Indians to use a mobile phone with their willingness to replace their purse or wallet with their phone.
• Technology adoption is a complex process. Government orders or currency shortage can't force people to adopt to a new technology. Adoption of any new technology needs necessary infrastructure, awareness among citizens and their willingness to accept the change. 
• A favorable regulatory environment is also a prerequisite.

India is utterly unprepared at this point of time for switch to cashless economy: 

• Out of 139 countries ranked in the Network Readiness Index (NRI), India stood at 91. On two counts - availability of infrastructure and level of skills among people - India ranked even lower (114 and 101 respectively). In terms of individual use of information technology, India's rank was 120 out of 139 countries.
• China got an overall rank of 59. Singapore topped the global ranking. 
• One third of the Indian population is still illiterate and a third of our youth are not enrolled in secondary education. Technology penetration is pathetic - only 15% households have access to the Internet and mobile broadband just reaches a few.

People take to new technologies when they see clear benefits, trust the providers, find it convenient and can afford it. The mobile wallet is a long way from fulfilling these basic criteria. As things stand now, cashless transactions is going to be an urban phenomenon.  Rural population adopting cashless transactions is decades away.


My View:
Informal economy including agriculture provides employment to about 90% population and is 55% of GDP that are mostly either unskilled or semi skilled without any meaningful qualification. This sector is 100% dependent on cash for all its transactions. Majority of the people are with earning far below Rs.250,000 per annum which is income tax free limit. It is important  to note that income tax (direct tax) is one among many other taxes (indirect taxes) collected by government. All sections of people pay all indirect taxes. Informal section pays very less income tax. Modi government attempting to shrink cash in circulation and weaken informal economy seemingly appear "in larger interest of the nation" but organised sector is not in a position to provide such a large number of jobs to unskilled or semi skilled people with relocation issues. Cashless transactions is an attempt to collect taxes from this section is futile. Collecting small tax from large number of people is an uphill task and at the end expenses far outstrip the income apart from promoting corruption. For Indian informal sector, cash economy benefits far outweigh meager cashless economy benefits.