"Aadhaar Works. That Doesn't Mean It Works for Everyone."

Aadhaar is one of the most ambitious digital identity projects in history — 1.3 billion enrollments, a biometric-linked national ID that underpins welfare distribution, banking, mobile connections, and increasingly, private sector authentication. The technical achievement is real. So is the problem it created.

## The Core Tension

The design assumption behind Aadhaar is that identity can be reliably verified through biometrics — primarily fingerprint and iris. For most people, this works. For a specific population — laborers, farmers, the elderly — fingerprint degradation from manual work means authentication failure rates that are hard to pin down but consistently reported in field studies.

A 2018 Economic and Political Weekly study found failure rates of 10-40% for specific demographic groups in rural authentication attempts. The government disputes these numbers. The field reports from PDS (public distribution system) administrators do not.

The consequence is concrete: a person entitled to subsidized grain cannot authenticate, cannot receive the benefit, and has limited recourse. The failure isn't dramatic — no one is detained, no crime is committed — but the effect is denial of food subsidy to people who need it.

## How It Became Mandatory

Aadhaar started as voluntary, became practically compulsory for welfare, survived a Supreme Court challenge in 2018, and now sits at the center of Indian digital infrastructure. The 2018 Puttaswamy judgment ruled Aadhaar constitutional for government benefits but struck down mandatory private sector linkage. In practice, banks, telecom operators, and financial platforms have found ways to make it functionally required.

The centralization has practical benefits: India's Jan Dhan Yojana bank account program, which opened 500+ million accounts for unbanked citizens, uses Aadhaar for KYC and actually works at scale. DBT (Direct Benefit Transfer) payments reach beneficiaries directly rather than leaking through intermediaries. These are real gains.

## The Exclusion Costs

What gets less coverage is the exclusion side. People who appear in the database but cannot authenticate. People who moved and whose address doesn't match. Migrants whose Aadhaar is linked to a rural address but who live in Delhi slums. The mismatch between a static database record and a mobile population.

The Supreme Court noted in 2018 that exclusion from welfare was a constitutional concern. The government responded with offline Aadhaar verification and face authentication as fallback mechanisms. How consistently these alternatives are implemented at the last mile — in village-level PDS shops and rural health clinics — is a different question from whether they technically exist.

## The Broader Question

Aadhaar is sometimes cited in other countries as a model for digital ID. Singapore, Jamaica, Philippines, and parts of Africa have had delegations study it. The lesson usually extracted is that biometric digital ID is scalable and enables financial inclusion. That's accurate as far as it goes. The less-exported lesson is about what happens when the system fails and who bears the cost of that failure. In India's case, the cost is concentrated among people with the least political voice and the most need.

"Aadhaar Works. That Doesn't Mean It Works for Everyone."

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE