Thanks for reading and for taking the time to comment RR, although I do not agree with some of your remarks. For instance, I do not believe at all that calling Nandan Nilekani a billionaire is an attempt to vilify him. Neither does “positioning it as a development tool,” suggests any other (negative) motivations. This is a description of how Aadhaar was first introduced via the Planning Commission, specifically as a tool to reduce welfare corruption.
Several problems related to Aadhaar services during the pandemic have been documented, I don’t think I need to list them here.
You are right to point out that the impact of technological progress is well known, and I do not imply that nothing should be done. The article argues that governments such as Indonesia’s, which grapple with planning and building a digital ID infrastructure now, do not necessarily have the capacity (yet) to implement such systems with all the potential risks in mind. Therefore, even within government agencies, there is some hesitance over going in a direction that would centralise authority over a digital ID with one agency.