BANK PRIVATISATION WILL BE DONE SHORTLY --It is useless to expect from bank unions now because their only goal is to stick to power

If we look at the history of banking in India, when banks were nationalized in 1969, it gave a new direction to Indian banking. At that time, there were very few branches of banks in total 8,200 and rural and semi-urban areas across India. Apparently most of the people in India are deprived of banking services.

Today there are 80-90 thousand branches of banks in the country. After nationalization of banks, branches of banks expanded and agricultural loans joined the definition of banks. Banks also started opening accounts of those who have capital of Rs., started giving loans to small industries at low interest rates. And this is how banks tried to reach all who had never taken banks services as depositors or borrowers.

Banks started honoring economically low-notch people as a depositor which was a big achievement for banks. This is what you can call the first phase of financial inclusion.

There were some banks before but they were in the private sector and their aim was only to make profit.

It is very easy to raise the voice of privatization of banks when an accident happens. But it's not just a matter of scams when such things come out. The major incident that happened earlier when it was talked about privatization of banks was the exposure of the growing non-performing assets of banks i.e. the NPA.

It is said that the corporate loans of banks have a NPA of 15-20 per cent, which has a total of 10-12 per cent and has reduced the profitability of banks.

It is said that this will reduce the capital of banks and will not be able to reach the international standard basel of banks. This will directly affect the ability of banks to give loans and it may be banned later.

These are problems but the diagnosis is not privatization. In a country like India that is far behind economically, academically, socially and infrastructure availability, thinking that profit should be the only target of banks is a big question in itself to which we answer. Have to explore.

Despite this, private banks came to India in 1991 whose only aim was to earn profit. A large minimum balance was required for accounts in these banks and still is which is not possible for the common man. The second phase of financial inclusion is the gift of current Prime Minister Narendra Modi when he talked about Jan Dhan Yojana. Government banks played a big role in the 25 crore accounts that were opened under this.

It's not that private banks don't have NPA. But it's worth watching that the NPA in government banks is not their ownership but their business model. Except the 2-3 banks in India, most of the banks give retail loans. If government banks also concentrated on retail loans, they would not have NPA too.

Look at the global economic problem that caused in 2008, it was not corporate loans but retail loans, home loans and above derivatives. The banks behind this were not government banks but all private banks.

There is no guarantee that retail loans will always be safe and the eternal truth is that private owners can run banks better. It is not and it has been proven before.

But looking at the situation of our country we have to develop more now, we need corporate loans. Countries like America don't need this because people over there have now reached a high level of living and people need loans for cars, to travel. Banks there give more retail loans.

Also those countries have a large and developed market of corporate bonds that meets the needs of the companies, factories and municipalities there. The corporate bond market in India has never evolved that way. Also developed countries have long term loansing institutions that are not in our country. Initially there were ECECI, IDBI, IDFC and IFCI, some are now converted to banks.

The problem is also that private banks will not give loans to companies in our country because they have to do safe loan i.e. retail loan. So we should look at the NPAs of government sector banks in such a way that they are fulfilling a national needs which will be needed further.

Now it is straight that if corporate banks give government banks then NPA will also be theirs.

Also see that long term loans are given based on the assessment of the growth of the economy in the coming 10-15 years. Sometimes the market has a recession as recently happened in the steel sector, steel prices fell, iron ore prices increased, iron ore and coal mining banned. So this is why the company suffered losses so it wasn't the banks fault, also it wasn't that the assessment was wrong.

Talk about infrastructure projects, if the bank will give loans only after taking all types of approvals, the project will take a long time to start. When loans were given for power, there were problems on coal mining. Loans were given for the roads and a piece of land somewhere became a problem. Somewhere in one piece had a problem with environmental clearance. For many such reasons also projects get stuck and banks money sinks.

Now even for four five years, if you do not get money, then the amount of loan becomes huge by adding interest. But for them, when the banks gave loan for it, all of them were not so evaluated.

So in this way, the ability of the borrower to pay the loan of the bank by earning profit is affected. And since the project is not completed he will never be able to pay off the loan. NPA of banks suddenly increased due to this reason too. Neither was it the fault of the ownership of the banks nor the fact that they ruined the appraisal.

PNB scams and banks processing people talk very spicy but no one knows the reason I tell you the main reason for the scam was political pressure loans and lack of system. Such accidents have occurred in private banks even more than government banks

An employee at Society General Bank scammed the bank with seven million dollars that was much bigger than the PNB scam. The bank could not catch this scam nor could it escape the loss.

Why does the government come to save such banks?

Sometimes banks fail due to lack of compensation for big loans. But in such a way, the government has to come forward to save him.

In the case of government banks, if the government pays money for the bank, it is very criticized, but the banks be private or government have lifetime deposits of people of all types of small-large. And bank failing is socially unacceptable.

Now the bank may be government or private, the government has to come forward. Even if all private banks fail, the government will have to come forward to help. This is called ' privatization of profits and governmentization of loss s'.

Government banks need to reform. There are many problems in government banks they need to be removed so that banks can work better.

Privatization of government banks is to make the problem even bigger by getting tired of losses caused by some companies or some external reasons. If you do this, common people will also come in its JD.

This can never be an effective way to end the problems facing banks

It is useless to expect from bank unions now because their only goal is to stick to power even after retirement and they only wish to live with the intoxication of power. Does anyone know that in banks like IDBI, AIBEA AIBOA and AIBOC are the only ones. There is a union in which AIBEA is the biggest union, but he did not even touch that Anurag Chandra in Ibok kept on making rounds of leaders from top to bottom, but why did we say the same thing when she is not speaking AIBEA.

Now this movement and the responsibility to save the bank is on ordinary banks like me and you and it should not be surprised if the movement of bank workers is also collected like the farmer's movement in 2021

Credits to you