A well functioning state needs to be a strong (sorry libertarians) and benign (cf. Somalia and North Korea) to take care of its citizens. You can take birth, live and die in a weak state without the State ever knowing you existed, let alone provide you with services.
Things we take for granted in the so-called developed economies e.g. getting a birth certificate, accessing public education, voting rights, drivers license - rely on smaller units of government providing unique identity services which are then chained up the ladder. My local hospital provides a birth certificate which is attested to by the county recorder's office which then serves as proof to get a driving license, passport etc.
In a weak state like India, the local entities are thoroughly corrupt. A blue eyed/blond 6.5 foot viking can get a birth certificate in an indian province where most citizens are under 5.5 foot and caramel colored for less than a hundred dollars.
So I posit my meta question - how is a nation state supposed to provide unique identity authentication?
Aadhaar is a 12 digit random number assigned to everyone by the Unique Identification Authority of India. The project was led by one of the founders of Infosys who ran as a Member of Parliament for the opposition Congress party. Each political party takes potshots at it when they are not in power but it has support across the aisle. From my (albeit limited) understanding, Aadhaar is simply authentication - and not tracking.
The intelligentsia in India defines themselves by opposition to Aadhaar. There is a huge cacophony of bollywood stars, writers, intellectuals and of course civil libertarians opposing Aadhaar. What is lost is the colossal leakage (euphemism for corruption) in benefits, the lack of existence of hundreds of millions of citizens and the resulting parasitism of political machines to get them benefits of the old system.
Does anyone have anything else in mind that would work better? Or is this simply opposition for opposition sake?
(edits for clarity)