What to Make of 99% Return of Old Demonetized Notes to the RBI

After recent announcement that approx. 99% of demonetized Rs 500/1000 notes have returned to the RBI, media is busy mentioning it as a failure of demonetization. That makes me rethink about how it all happened.

First, Modi addressed nation on the evening of 8th Nov, 2016, announcing demonetization. In his speech, he put equal emphasis on how demonetization would try to address problems of terror-funding, fake currency circulation, hawala trade, along with of course black money and corruption. If you remember the first most visible impact of demonetization, apart from of course the long queues and lots of trouble to the public, it was an abrupt halt on stone pelting in Kashmir. Why did stone pelting stop? Next, we read news and saw pictures and TV footages of how old currency notes were thrown away in rivers, ponds, sewage and some were also burnt, and at some places were also distributed to the poor by making a road-side stall.

Next, a lot of such old currencies were deposited in the Jan Dhan accounts of poor people. We have statistics: 2.26 Crore new Jan Dhan accounts were opened immediately after demonetization was announced and total deposits in them doubled to Rs 87000 Crores. Was govt angry at it and tried to stop it? No, Modi asked people in his humor to let rich people deposit money in the Jan Dhan accounts; but do not to let them withdraw it; thereby keeping the money as their own. If Modi did not want all this money to return to the RBI, would he say that?

So, from where did this theory come – that govt did not want all the demonetized old currencies to return to the RBI?

This theory, like a lot others which are circulating, happened thanks to our media and its “TV Experts”. Just next day after demonetization was announced, I heard a “TV Expert” say that after demonetization only 80% of old currencies would return to the RBI and hence RBI’s balance sheet would become stronger. From where did this guy get this “80%” figure? Along with share-market experts and weather forecasters, these “TV experts” are the new “astrologers”. Masquerading pure fiction as expert commentary and cooked figures as statistics, these TV experts hide their ignorance with good language skills and are making good bucks. So, this theory that 20% old notes won’t return to RBI was started by the media and it spread widely since it was “easy to understand”. And now that it did not happen, media is busy putting govt/RBI on the spot, while hiding its own bad job. But we know.

We know that just after announcing demonetization, govt had launched its new black money declaration scheme called “Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana” which meant that the govt wanted old currency notes to return to the banks. It just wanted those currencies to return through the right channel and to serve the right purpose. That is why old notes were allowed to be used to pay loan EMIs, to be used in govt shops, cooperative stores, petrol stations, pay utility bills, etc too. Using the Garib Kalyan Yojna, anyone could declare one’s unaccounted money, pay approx. 50% tax and keep the remaining. If govt. did not want old currencies to return to the RBI, why would it launch this black money declaration scheme? It seems govt. was looking at long term goals like increased tax compliance and strategic maneuvers like changing games for terror and hawala funding rather than short term benefits like not allowing old currencies back to the banks and improving RBI’s balance sheet.

In fact, this whole “idea” that govt. should just scrap old notes, prevent people from depositing back old notes, and thereby make gains for the RBI - is so “sinister”. Did media expect or want our govt. to play such “tricks” with the people?

It seems govt. and RBI had clear plans for demonetization and they went ahead with their execution; while the media kept making theories and conducting TV debates.

As such I do not support demonetization because it created lots of discomfort to the common people and I think it was not worth it because of that reason alone. But when media says that it was not worth it “since old notes returned to RBI” I find it a ridiculous idea.

- Rahul

Political Artists as Conscience Keepers

Recently Oscar winner AR Rahman performed at a concert* organized on the occasion of Mulayam Singh's birthday. I am sure he would go even if Lalu invites him. Or if Lalit Modi or Rahul Gandhi invites him. And no one would raise an eyebrow. Why? Because apparently Rahman being an artist would be doing all these shows to "earn his bread". The fact that he would already be a millionaire and hence performing at each function where host is ready to pay should not really be counted as "earning bread" but can be seen as an attempt to keep the "rich and powerful on one's sides", could be ignored.

I think being an artist gives him the privilege of not being conscientious when it comes to grab money making opportunities. There can be some more professions like this. Doctors would treat any sick person no matter his/her background; lawyers can defend any accused if one pleads not guilty. Others are not so lucky. If you work in a firm which is considered doing unethical business or corrupt - it is often taken as a blemish on your character too.

Now, after becoming rich and powerful helped by keeping conscience locked in a closet for best part of life when one is young and energetic, if these artists or professionals suddenly start pretending to have a more genuine conscience than yours and mine, and being holier than the common man, what do we do? I discard such individuals and their claims as trash.

---

* The Concert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1f2WepFA4Y

- Rahul