NEED FOR TOLERANCE AND UNDERSTANDING
SRI PRAKASA
It
is a curious fact of human nature that we are all so obsessed with our own ways
of thinking and acting that we have little patience with those who do not agree
with us, and act and think in a way different to ours. Most
of the clashes and conflicts in life–individua1, social and national–are due to
this lack of understanding resulting in intolerance and illwill.
The situation becomes particularly tragic when men, in positions of
responsibility and authority, refuse to take into consideration the views of
others, not so happily placed as themselves, and not only try to introduce but
actually force in the name of reform, such revolutionary changes in the habits
of a people that lead to the upset of an established socia1 and economic order
with very unhappy and even disastrous consequences. Unless there should be some
obvious wide-spread evil that needs immediate eradication, we should be very
careful when we touch social systems that have the
sanction of ages and, generally speaking, have even been helpful in maintaining
the stability of social and economic life in the communities in
which they have flourished. A note of warning is very necessary at this time
when we are in a very serious state of transition. With our age-old
traditions on the one hand, and on the other, with new
and conflicting notions of right and wrong coming to us from
In
a country like ours which is preponderatingly rural,
it would be best to keep the conditions of the countryside and the needs and
requirements of the people there, always in mind. Let us take a typical
Indian village as it still is. Most of the persons there are given to
agricultural pursuits. They have their bits of land which they till and on
which they grow their crops. They have a great deal of instinctive wisdom that
enables them to deal with their fellow men, and have also
much hereditary knowledge regarding seed and season, crop and cattle. There is
also, within hailing distance, a village banker who, everybody knows, will come
to his rescue when he should be in need. “Give a dog a bad name and hang him”
is an old adage. ‘Banker’ is a respectable word, but ‘moneylender’ is
detestable. So a village banker is called a money-lender, and roundly abused.
Ordinarily they should, and do, mean the same thing. An old Sanskrit verse
says: “O, friend, do not make your abode at a place where four things should be
wanting: a giver of debts; a physician; a man of learning; and a stream of
sweet water.”
Mitra
tatra na
vastavyam yatra nasti chatushtayam
Rinadata
cha vaidyascha srotriiyah sajala nadi
Among
the four requisites, the giver of debts–the
banker or the money-lender is put down first. One does not know when evil would
befall, money at home would run short, and it would be badly needed. Someone
must be available in the neighbourhood who would be
willing to give this to him as and when necessary. The writer of the verse was
wise when he asked others not to think of settling down where there would not
be someone to lend him money when he needs it;
someone who would be able to look after him when he is ill; someone who
would impart knowledge to him and act as a priest on solemn
occasions of births, marriages or deaths; and where there is not also a stream
of sweet water that he would need always as a most essential drink.
It
is a curious thing that persons, in practically every profession, make money by
the troubles and sufferings of others. A doctor demands his fee from a patient
who is in pain. A lawyer extracts money from clients who are in difficulties. A
trader gets his money from those who perforce have to go to him for various to
necessities of life, without which they cannot live. The banker–or
and money-lender if you will–is the one person who
gives money to help others instead of taking it, when they are in sore need.
There may be doctors and lawyers to pay. There may be a marriage or a burial.
There may be rough weather requiring clothes, umbrellas, shoes or the like. Doctors,
lawyers, and traders have therefore to be paid. Where is the money to come
from? When there is little left in the house, one has to go to his banker or
money-lender. He comes to the rescue of the person in dire distress. He gives
money to relieve others, in their difficulties. Nobody else does so; and for
his troubles, he is now getting the curses of the people who should know
better.
They
say that the money-lender charges very high rates of interest. He is a
despicable usurer. An examination of the situation will certainly prove that
the lawyer, the doctor, the Government officer and the trader charge,
proportionately speaking, much higher rates, for their services, on the money
they had invested, to fit themselves for their professions. A person who is a lawyer, may have spent, say, twenty to
thirty thousand rupees on his education, and he may be making as much–even very
much more–in a single year. He is thus charging more than cent percent on his
investment. The same can be said of the doctors, the traders, and public
officials. The lawyer is certainly in a most enviable position; for, even when
the fees of doctors, the prices for merchants and the salaries of permanent
employees may be fixed, lawyers are free to charge as much as they please; and
funnily it is the lawyer who plays the most important part in legislation. We
never hear of any piece of legislation that might curb the lawyer. He is
however able to abuse the trader and the money-lender, and fix their gains
while keeping himself immune from any such ceiling.
Let
us see how the village money-lender functions. He is available to his brethren,
unlike official banking houses, night and day. He keeps deposits of villagers
and pays interest on the same. He gives money to villagers at various rates of
interest. There is no law of limitation for him. Persons who have deposited
money with him, can get it back even after the period of limitation has run.
There is no need for a certificate of succession; and as the banker knows the
family of the deceased depositor, he pays back the money to his son without any
proofs being required. The village people who borrow
from him, also pay back as they can. The rate of interest is high because it is
a fact that many borrowers are never able to pay back anything at all. They
fall into hopeless difficulties, and the money-lender has to write off his dues
from them. Others who are in comparatively good circumstances, pay; and so if
the accounts at the end of the year are scrutinised,
it would be found that the ultimate profits of the money-lender is not very
much more than that of official respectable bankers.
Long
years ago, as a member of the Congress Opposition in the Central Legislative
Assembly, I had asked a question as to the amount that was left
over in the Post Office Savings Bank without the depositors coming to claim
them for years. I was then informed that the amount was sixteen crores. The other day a similar question was asked in
Parliament; and the reply from Government was that the amount was about twelve crores. I was informed by the then Governor of the Reserve
Bank when I was in Bombay, that the amount lying with various banks in India on
which the depositors had made no calls, was about four crores.
Thus about sixteen crores of rupees are lying in the
Post Office Savings Bank and various scheduled and other banks, which are not
being paid back because those who had put their money there, are not claiming
the same. They may be dead or careless, or may even have forgotten. A thing
like that cannot happen with the village money-lender. He cannot gobble up any
sums of money left over with him, for the sons know where their dead fathers
had deposited the money, and will claim it. In the case of banks, so many
formalities are necessary for the successors of dead persons to get back the
money, that they find it cheaper to lose it than to undergo the various
formalities requiring heavy expenses and endless running from pillar to post,
and being ticked off here, there and everywhere by peons, clerks and officials
of all sorts.
Let
me give an illustration from my own family. A member suddenly died intestate as most of us do. He had enough money in banks to
pay for his Estate Duty and to meet various demands incident on a death like
this. The brothers who were his successors were helpless. The manager of the
Bank knew us very well, but the law would not permit him to give that money to
the successors without a succession certificate. This could not be had without
first paying the Estate Duty. The result was that quite a lakh
of rupees had to be borrowed to pay for funeral expenses, Estate Duty,
succession certificate etc., and to meet various other demands before the
formalities were completed and the Bank agreed to pay. All that took a
whole year. If the money had been with a village banker or money-lender, a
thing like that would not have happened. When I ventured to say to the Governor
of the Reserve Bank that he should instruct the various scheduled banks to take
steps to find out the depositors or their successors when any account of theirs
had not been operated upon for a long time and pay them back the money due to
them, I was solemnly informed that that was not the banks’ business; it would
entail too much trouble, besides. I cannot understand why that is not the
banks’ business, and what trouble there would be; because, they keep monthly
accounts, know their addresses, and they can easily get in touch with them if
they so want; and in case of their death, with their successors, and offer to
pay them their money. That will make banks popular, and inculcate banking
habits among the people. Generally our people keep their money fallow in their
houses for the sake of safety. If such money is kept floating about through
banks, it would be helpful for the economic life of the country. We have,
therefore, to act in a manner that would be conducive to the
welfare of all concerned.
Many
years ago, the Reserve Bank itself had, after carrying on the necessary
investigation, reported that the village money-lender was a very important
factor in maintaining village economy; and still there was a report in
the papers some days back that the villager was still in the ‘Clutches of the
money-lender’. The poverty and the misery of the villager is put down to
the activities of such a money-lender. As one who had a great deal to do with
villages and villagers throughout his life, I might say in all humility, from
my own experience, that it is not the village money-lender whose clutches
create havoc in the countryside, but it is the lawyer and his tout who are
responsible for most of the miseries of our humble village folk. So-called
reformers also assign the troubles of the villager to heavy expenses in
marriages and other domestic functions. My own experience shows that if there
is one family that has come to grief because of very heavy expenditure
at marriage time, and one other because they had taken heavy
debts which they could not pay back, ninety-eight find
themselves in dire difficulties because of the activities of the lawyer and his
tout. The tout in the village is called a ‘barrister’; and I remember
one of them telling me when I was trying to settle a dispute and that too in my
own zamindari village–that I did not know any law
though I had just then come back with both an academic and a professional
degree in law from England; and that if anyone knew any law, it was himself.
And he was right. It is no use my being told that the lawyers know nothing
about these touts who create quarrels where there are none; who prevent
differences being composed when they arise; and who drag parties to law courts
ruining all concerned. As the Hindi saying goes, whoever wins in a law
suit, loses; and whoever loses, gets ruined; “Jo Jita
so hara, Jo hara so mara.”
Actually
the system of law as introduced in our country, despite its high faulting
pretences to be the palladium of Justice, the upholder of individual Liberty,
etc., the fact is that it has turned an honest, simple, God-fearing people into
liars and perjurers. If village men went to a neighbouring
elder, he would give an equitable judgment in their case within a few minutes,
as he knows all the facts, is conversant with village customs, and realises what is right and what is wrong. So the
evilly-inclined villager now goes to the law Court where the presiding officer
does not know the facts of the case; depends upon evidence which may be
perjured; and in the name of justice, actually promotes injustice, with the
best will in the world.
In
order therefore to bring about the real welfare of the village people, what is
wanted is to revive the institution of the village money-lender, give him
credit for good intentions and encourage him to be helpful; to revivify the Panchayats of elders who are there, not because of the
votes obtained by wicked canvassing, but because of natural age, so that real
justice may be done and peace prevail; and to establish auxiliary
small village industries so that the village folk may be able to supplement
their incomes from agriculture by working in them, and
usefully utilise their spare time when no
agricultural operations should be on. Establishment of large industries that
destroy villages and create new towns with all their problems, because such
things are done in America, does not suit us. Dams, canals and huge factories
may be all right in their own place, but village wells and workshops are more
important. Wells should be dug plentifully, and be available to all. Stress is
not to be placed on elections for the procuring of proper men for Panchayats and other purposes. Age, experience and
character should be given their due. Senseless abuse of old systems of village
life and forcing all sorts of ways and customs that do not suit us, would make
matters worse; and neither fulfil the wish of the
reformer, nor redound to the welfare of the people.