Why India's prime minister wants a cashless society

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi defended his government's demonetization drive over the weekend, saying the move would protect the poor and middle class. 

Anuwar Hazarika/Reuters
A security guard reads a newspaper inside an ATM counter as a notice is displayed on an ATM in Guwahati, India, on Nov. 27, 2016.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi defended his government's push to demonetize India this weekend, saying a cashless society would protect the vulnerable poor and middle class. 

Speaking on Friday, the prime minister emphasized the need for demonetization at a time when the "common citizen of India has become a soldier against corruption and black money." 

"Black money and corruption has looted the middle class and deprived the poor of their rights," he said, as reported by Asian News International. "I want to give the poor their rights. I am doing everything possible to ensure the middle class is not exploited and the poor get their dues." 

The defense came weeks after Prime Minister Modi's controversial decision on Nov. 8 to invalidate 86 percent of currency in circulation, a move denounced by many in a country where roughly half the population does not have a bank account. One recent poll found that more than 60 percent of Indians feel their nation is not ready to go cashless. 

Supporters of the push for demonetization say cutting out cash will reduce corruption and immoral transactions. But critics argue that the drive isn't practical in a cash-dominated country, and express concern that such a system could be exploited by the government. 

"India was, I think, where the use of cash was leading to the mass of people regarding the system as unfairly biased. Thus a less cash society should be welcomed," writes Tim Worstall for Forbes. "But a cashless society would be to swing too far the other way, increase the powers of the State to an unwelcome level. And thus is not a desirable goal at all." 

Some research suggests that a shift away from cash transactions in India may have been imminent without the push from Modi. A report by Google India and The Boston Consulting Group published earlier this year predicted that by the year 2020, nearly $500 billion worth of transactions will happen digitally in India through online wallets and other digital payment systems – ten times the current level. 

But some critics question whether the government's push is practical today in a country where, last year, 78 percent of consumer payments were made in cash. It may prove especially difficult to spread plastic money to rural areas, where mobile internet access is weak, many cannot afford the high cost of bank transactions, and literacy levels are lower, writes Ankur Bhardwaj for Business Standard.

"The beauty of cash is that it just works," Mr. Bhardwaj writes. "Even in the remotest locations of India, where the State might not be present with all its paraphernalia, its writ runs in the form of currency notes that people use to do business on a daily basis." 

"Cash transactions are not necessarily immoral transactions," he adds. "They are a highly refined way in which human beings, having evolved from the barter system prevalent in the ancient period, transact business today. Cash in itself represents order and evolution." 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why India's prime minister wants a cashless society
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today