User:DivyaKrish/sandbox

Overview: The essay talks about how people always associate a positive connotation to ‘Identity cards’ but it is not along the same lines, always. One can think of events how authorities distinguish minorities on the basis of race, creed, caste and many such categories. For example, the Apartheid in South Africa. The authors wants to draw attention of the readers to how invasion of privacy gets ‘legitimised’, that is the identity cards we possess may give out a lot of personal details that can be used for restricting us in many spheres. The concept of ‘everybody being scrutinised’ under surveillance has been brought out by making the audience aware of ‘identity’ not being restricted to ‘identity cards’ but also extends to medical, taxation, telephone records or even biological records. He looks at ‘surveillance’ as an industry which is growing but is salso restricting. People in Kahmir cannot make long distance calls or use internet, in the name of ‘surveillance’ which is an act of confinement. This essay written fifteen years prior to 2017, pointed at the initiative taken by the Indian government to create NISHAN and INDIA cards to sustain the surveillance process in India. The last few paragraphs contain the ways by which surveillance is carried out in India, online. For example, e-mails containing Arab names, words like rockets, missiles etcetera. Critical Aspects: There has been a wide ranged open debate about the introduction of Identity cards in India. Sengupta, in his essay has pointed out the problems that these surveillance cause to the general public. He points out the freedom for dissent through this essay. A citizen’s freedom would be curtailed and his educational, work related opportunities would directly be affected because of the transparency about one’s private life. It directly points about the need to feel safe and free in one’s own country. The right to privacy, which is a basic right of the citizen, is also violated through openly sharing details with multiple agencies. Sengupta targets the working class people and their plight if the information gets manipulated. This could also be seen as a capitalist critique in a country such as India where working class people face problems on a daily basis by the government. The high tech surveillance that has been introduced in a prison in Hyderabad is very similar to that of the genomic records or electronic tags that is going to be introduced in workspaces. This puts a criminal and an employee under one umbrella. The inhumane treatment done by private companies under the name of surveillance shatters the boundaries of ethics and respect attributed to an individual. E-mails, cell phones and all the tiny actions that we perform are under surveillance. There is a constant filtering of emails that involves a particular word that the government finds suspicious. This act not only violates freedom, it to some degree questions the integrity of a man. Sengupta says that this scenario is a living “nightmare” to the people of the country. What is freedom when it is not free? These are the questions that he asks. How imperative is the surveillance that costs us our power to dissent and protect? “The value of a man was reduced to his immediate identity and nearest possibility. To a vote. To a number. To a thing. Never was a man treated as a mind”, wrote Rohith Vemula in his suicide note. This essay draws parallels to his ideas of man who is being destroyed and put under surveillance negating the basic sense of independency. Debates around issues of Everyday Surveillance: The essay holds many issues which are debatable. It enables one to see how invasion of privacy gets legitimised, as the government has access to many private details of civilians, in the name of security. The author also draws a parallel between the surveillance system of London and India, stating that the surveillance system of London is more well equipped and heavier than India but the essay has been written fifteen years ago, and now there have been changes in the surveillance industry at London. He uses the phrase, 'surveillance on surveillance' to reiterate the concept of surveillance by using the same word twice and bringing about the idea of how humans are watching over something that is watching over them. The other question that can be raised is that if identity is only restricted to Identity Cards or not or it extends to other details. The notion of the west having the first hand at everything, even surveillance needs to be done away. The author also provides us with an example to address how the east has had an upper hand at surveillance. The negative contexts attached to Identity cards have also been brought up to make the general public aware of the problems attached to Identity cards who always think that it is necessarily for implementing betterment in the society. About the Author: Shuddhabrata Sengupta is an artist and writer, and member of Raqs Media Collective, a group that combines research, historical and philosophical inquiry, and contemporary art. In 2002 Sengupta co-initiated Sarai, a platform for discursive partnerships between theorists, researchers, practitioners, and artists engaged in reflecting on contemporary urban spaces and cultures in South Asia at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. Sengupta also co-edits the Sarai Reader Series. Raqs Media Collective’s work has been shown internationally at exhibitions. He was also a grantee with the India Foundation for the Arts (IFA) in the year 1995 for a project that aimed to document the history and practice of cinematography in Inida. Bibliography Thomas, Philip A. “Identity Cards.” The Modern Law Review, vol. 58, no. 5, 1995, pp. 702–713. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1096591. Nisbet, Nancy. “Resisting Surveillance: Identity and Implantable Microchips.” Leonardo, vol. 37, no. 3, 2004, pp. 211–214. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1577723. Milone, Mark G. “Biometric Surveillance: Searching for Identity.” The Business Lawyer, vol. 57, no. 1, 2001, pp. 497–512. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40688067. Monahan, Torin. “SURVEILLANCE AS CULTURAL PRACTICE.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 4, 2011, pp. 495–508. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23027562. Guttentag, Lucas and Lee Gelerent. “Employer Sanctions and National Identification Cards.” In Defense of the Alien, vol. 17, 1994, pp. 98–113. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23141088. Desk, Express Web. "My Birth Is My Fatal Accident: Full Text of Dalit Student Rohith’s Suicide Letter." The Indian Express. N.p., 19 Jan. 2016. Web. 03 July 2017