The way Indian officialdom communicates
2017/10/31
Issues concerning Aadhaar linkage with SIM ‘will be clear by Dec 1’
This article written by a S Ronendra Singh (SRS), mostly quoting Aruna Sundararajan (hereafter, AS), is a good case study that explains why we cannot put together a 757-class plane in India. AS is first introduced as "Secretary, Department of Telecom" under the photo.
Then there is her ominous proclamation "It is in customers’ interest to link the mobile number with the UID" --- which is exactly how bullies speak: "You had better link your mobile number with UID, because we will both be so much happier that way."
But I digress. The very next para ends "... Aruna Sundararajan, Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications, told BusinessLine in an interview". So which is it, department or ministry?
But then AS takes over, and she is in a different league of muddle altogether. Here are some jewels:
"She said many issues have become clear after the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, but for those consumers who are still confused, the TSPs will guide them how to link their SIM with Aadhaar."
There are excellent reasons why even Einstein would be confused. The Supreme Court is not in the habit of talking any more clearly than AS. More about that later.
“It is in your interest and my interest because of two-three reasons (wait, two reasons, or three? Make up your mind, or dodge by saying "several".): one is because of digital payment — a lot of people are using mobile banking. So, it is important that the right person is actually using the bank account attached to his/her name. Therefore, this will certainly enhance the security several fold,” she said.
Nope. By all accounts, linking Aadhaar to all banks and then your phone makes digital payment less secure. Linking my Aadhaar to my mobile is certainly in your interest, AS, but not mine.
As we move toward the end of the article, the level of muddle increases exponentially. It is not entirely clear if this is the fault of AS or SRS.
"Asked why one has to share his/her biometrics again, she clarified that it is for those consumers who have not linked their Aadhaar with mobile."
Given the directional nature of linking, only idiots would use the symmetric word "with". My best guess is that she means, "if you have registered your mobile number in the UIDAI site, you do not need to give your fingerprint to the mobile company". See? That was not difficult, was it? But everyone will understand it more precisely than what AS said.
Instead of cultivating precise speech and writing, the author then disintegrates into a perfect shitstorm of mental fog:
"She said these people may link their mobile number with Aadhaar by just putting the OTP while requesting for the linkage."
What-the-fuck? Putting the OTP where? Up your ass? Interpreted in one direction, most people who have an Aadhaar number have already "linked their mobile number with Aadhaar".
And the last para takes the cake (really asinine tokens highlighted):
“They don’t need to go anywhere. It is only in those categories, where a consumer has not got a SIM through the new process (where SIM is provided based on Aadhaar verification) or have not linked with one of their mobiles. Only for that limited category, we are saying 'please do a re-verification',” she added.
Let's throw a couple of Crocins down the hatch, splash some water on our faces, and take another look, word by excruciating word with their implicit multiple negations and scoped disjuncts spanning across sentences.
If you have already registered a mobile number in the UIDAI site ... then you do not need to go to the mobile company in person ... to register your Adhaar number with the mobile company ...
... unless you got your SIM through "the old process" in which Aadhaar number was not required.
See the difference? The newspaper version is the result of dysfunctional minds and degrees that did not teach AS or SHS to write a single sentence clearly. Every single additional word in the newspaper version adds confusion and ambiguity.
Oh, and the category she refers to is not at all "limited". SIM issuance after Aadhaar verification began in earnest only after 2014. A vast number of post-paid accounts with solid KYCs did not use Aadhaar.
And, speaking of the Supreme Court...
We should have a special space in our hearts for the (not so) Supreme Court. It is burdened with resolving not only trivial matters of Aadhaar and state overreach, but also such weighty matters as whether the national anthem should be played prior to movies in theaters, and whether you can be compelled to stand during the performance. A handicapped person has even been harassed for failing to stand up (not for his rights, evidently). Anyway, here is the tone of a Supreme Court Justice, D Y Chandrachud, speaking:
Meanwhile I have not heard a single attorney or judge get to the heart of the matter with a simple analogy. Societies differ dramatically in the extent to which public demonstration of romantic affection are allowed, from the harems of ancient Persia to stuck-up Victorian pricks to Scandinavian beaches in modern times. But no society, ranging from the harems to the pricks to Scandinavia, makes it compulsory to show affection in public. A society may ostracize you for showing affection beyond its conventional limits, but it cannot hold you culpable for showing insufficient affection.
When providence finds a civilization ripe for slaughter, rulers of said civilization forget that citizenship is expressed through paying taxes and behaving ethically with others. Absolutely nothing else is required for citizenship. Perhaps if the above two critical traits were well-entrenched in Indian citizens using carrot and stick, the theatrics of standing up in theaters would not be needed.
Issues concerning Aadhaar linkage with SIM ‘will be clear by Dec 1’
This article written by a S Ronendra Singh (SRS), mostly quoting Aruna Sundararajan (hereafter, AS), is a good case study that explains why we cannot put together a 757-class plane in India. AS is first introduced as "Secretary, Department of Telecom" under the photo.
Then there is her ominous proclamation "It is in customers’ interest to link the mobile number with the UID" --- which is exactly how bullies speak: "You had better link your mobile number with UID, because we will both be so much happier that way."
But I digress. The very next para ends "... Aruna Sundararajan, Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunications, told BusinessLine in an interview". So which is it, department or ministry?
But then AS takes over, and she is in a different league of muddle altogether. Here are some jewels:
- “What we have told the TSPs (telecom service providers) is that within the next two weeks, that is, by November 15, they should actually come up with a mechanism in which all options should be available upfront on their portals,” --- Wait a second, a mechanism in which all options be available on portals --- have you heard anyone talk like this who gets things done?
- “The UIDAI and the DoT will sit together in the next two weeks, and check their processes, and we will give them another two-three weeks time to actually implement. So, we are hoping that by December 1, citizens will know what the options are and will be able to choose that option online.”
"She said many issues have become clear after the latest judgment of the Supreme Court, but for those consumers who are still confused, the TSPs will guide them how to link their SIM with Aadhaar."
There are excellent reasons why even Einstein would be confused. The Supreme Court is not in the habit of talking any more clearly than AS. More about that later.
“It is in your interest and my interest because of two-three reasons (wait, two reasons, or three? Make up your mind, or dodge by saying "several".): one is because of digital payment — a lot of people are using mobile banking. So, it is important that the right person is actually using the bank account attached to his/her name. Therefore, this will certainly enhance the security several fold,” she said.
Nope. By all accounts, linking Aadhaar to all banks and then your phone makes digital payment less secure. Linking my Aadhaar to my mobile is certainly in your interest, AS, but not mine.
As we move toward the end of the article, the level of muddle increases exponentially. It is not entirely clear if this is the fault of AS or SRS.
"Asked why one has to share his/her biometrics again, she clarified that it is for those consumers who have not linked their Aadhaar with mobile."
Given the directional nature of linking, only idiots would use the symmetric word "with". My best guess is that she means, "if you have registered your mobile number in the UIDAI site, you do not need to give your fingerprint to the mobile company". See? That was not difficult, was it? But everyone will understand it more precisely than what AS said.
Instead of cultivating precise speech and writing, the author then disintegrates into a perfect shitstorm of mental fog:
"She said these people may link their mobile number with Aadhaar by just putting the OTP while requesting for the linkage."
What-the-fuck? Putting the OTP where? Up your ass? Interpreted in one direction, most people who have an Aadhaar number have already "linked their mobile number with Aadhaar".
And the last para takes the cake (really asinine tokens highlighted):
“They don’t need to go anywhere. It is only in those categories, where a consumer has not got a SIM through the new process (where SIM is provided based on Aadhaar verification) or have not linked with one of their mobiles. Only for that limited category, we are saying 'please do a re-verification',” she added.
Let's throw a couple of Crocins down the hatch, splash some water on our faces, and take another look, word by excruciating word with their implicit multiple negations and scoped disjuncts spanning across sentences.
If you have already registered a mobile number in the UIDAI site ... then you do not need to go to the mobile company in person ... to register your Adhaar number with the mobile company ...
... unless you got your SIM through "the old process" in which Aadhaar number was not required.
See the difference? The newspaper version is the result of dysfunctional minds and degrees that did not teach AS or SHS to write a single sentence clearly. Every single additional word in the newspaper version adds confusion and ambiguity.
Oh, and the category she refers to is not at all "limited". SIM issuance after Aadhaar verification began in earnest only after 2014. A vast number of post-paid accounts with solid KYCs did not use Aadhaar.
And, speaking of the Supreme Court...
We should have a special space in our hearts for the (not so) Supreme Court. It is burdened with resolving not only trivial matters of Aadhaar and state overreach, but also such weighty matters as whether the national anthem should be played prior to movies in theaters, and whether you can be compelled to stand during the performance. A handicapped person has even been harassed for failing to stand up (not for his rights, evidently). Anyway, here is the tone of a Supreme Court Justice, D Y Chandrachud, speaking:
Why doesn't the Centre amend the law (missing question mark). Why should the burden be thrown on the judiciary (missing question mark). Tomorrow you will say ban people from wearing T-shirts and shorts to the cinema hall because it's an insult to national anthem. Where do you draw a line? Where does this moral policing stop? [...] People go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment. Why should we make choices for them? Why should we assume that if someone doesn't stand up for anthem in the cinema hall, he is not patriotic? [...] there is no mandate that people should stand up when the National Anthem is sung in a cinema hall. This is obviously because a cinema hall is a place for entertainment [...] people go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment. Society needs entertainment.Really? We needed a Supreme Court Justice to present us with such epiphanies as "People go to cinema halls for undiluted entertainment" and "Society needs entertainment"? I certainly would not hire anyone with this level of self-expression. Is he addressing cultivated adults or a class in elementary school? And what the fuck have T-shirts and shorts got to do with this?
Meanwhile I have not heard a single attorney or judge get to the heart of the matter with a simple analogy. Societies differ dramatically in the extent to which public demonstration of romantic affection are allowed, from the harems of ancient Persia to stuck-up Victorian pricks to Scandinavian beaches in modern times. But no society, ranging from the harems to the pricks to Scandinavia, makes it compulsory to show affection in public. A society may ostracize you for showing affection beyond its conventional limits, but it cannot hold you culpable for showing insufficient affection.
When providence finds a civilization ripe for slaughter, rulers of said civilization forget that citizenship is expressed through paying taxes and behaving ethically with others. Absolutely nothing else is required for citizenship. Perhaps if the above two critical traits were well-entrenched in Indian citizens using carrot and stick, the theatrics of standing up in theaters would not be needed.
Comments
Post a Comment