At first sight Patrail village under Delduar Union of Tangail appeared as one of those ubiquitous villages straddling the countryside in Bangladesh. The distinction revealed itself as one walked through the winding narrow kutcha roads hugged by bamboo clumps, assorted trees and jerry-built huts. In every possible open space weavers, men and women were busy stretching layer after layer of multi-coloured threads. From the nearby weather-beaten huts came the sound of pit loom. Patrail was a weaver’s village where poverty was a way of life. They used to take loan from the moneylender and repaid the loan (Pattan) in kind handing over the sari or lungi made by them. On each sari they barely made a profit of Tk 20. They didn’t have to go to the moneylenders now and the middleman’s share came to them which increased the profit per sari to Tk 50. The difference had been made possible by Grameen Bank which was functioning in Deojan-Delduar area since 1980 with 1965 members organised into 289 groups. Besides Patrail village, members in other villages also took loan for weaving which was the most popular self-employment activity followed by beef fattening and stationery article sales. Both male and female members were engaged in these activities and took loan up to a maximum of Tk 5,000 to be repaid in 52 weekly installments. So far the Delduar branch had disbursed a total loan of Tk one crore and fifty lakh and there was no default in repayment.

As a credit giving institution, Grameen Bank had so far been extremely successful. Not only repayment was hundred percent, there was hardly any diversion of the loan money and supervision by Bank workers ensured that the credit was used for the declared purpose. But the success of Grameen Bank could not be judged by recovery rate alone, neither by the coverage of membership or the number of activities. It was a programme for poverty alleviation and as such its success depended on the number of poor it had been able to lift above the poverty line. The most crude and workable definition for Grameen Bank could be the income level after which the members would not need any credit and the bank could drop them from the group to cater to new members. But Grameen Bank did not have a strategy for enabling the members to graduate from the poverty situation within a time frame in distinct stages. As a result loans were being repeated for the same member almost every year after repayment was over, making their dependence on loan permanent. On the other hand, the absence of this strategy allowed the fortunate few who had been able to earn more money to become greedy turning into petty capitalists. If Grameen Bank’s main objective was to alleviate poverty, the absence of a conscious policy and a well-worked out strategy for helping the poor to tide over their destitution within a specified time could not but appear as a glowing shortcoming. This was not to deny that in the absence of the credit facilities many of the members would have become poorer or continued to be exploited by moneylenders and middlemen. But all that Grameen Bank had achieved so far was to marginally improve their life at the edge of subsistence. As pointed out, this limited success was inherent in the strategy followed by Grameen Bank and in this respect was not an improvement over that Small Farmer Development Programme from which it had borrowed most of the principle. For that matter none of the other poverty focused programmes was above this criticism and if these programmes were continued without any change in the basic strategy, the overwhelming majority of the target groups covered under these programmes would remain below the poverty line and the few lucky clients smart enough would cross the line in spite of the absence of a conscious strategy. But both these categories would tend to depend on loan in perpetuity. The first category would need repeat loan to reproduce the low productivity activities year after year with marginal improvement in their lives and the second category would not cease taking loan because of sheer greed to add to profit. Both these types were found in the Deojan-Delduar area.

Rajendra Rajbangshi, a weaver in Patrail village, became a member of a Grameen Bank group five years ago. He had received three loans totalling Tk eleven thousand taka, the maximum single loan being Tk 5000. ‘At the present rate would you need to borrow further and be able to manage with your own saving?” I asked. He hesitated for a while, made same mental calculation and said “ten thousand taka.” Though illiterate, he knew the threshold credit required by him to become self-reliant. Kanai Lal Sanker and his son were both member of a Grameen Bank group. He was a wood worker, and his son was a weaver. He received two loans amounting to six thousand taka, the maximum single loan being three thousand and five hundred taka. While he bought timber for making plough and furniture his son bought yarn for weaving. He and his five sons and daughters lived in a joint family and they had some agricultural land. “Should you not be able to do without loan now?” I asked, “No, I need it every year”, he said emphatically. “What amount of loan would make you self-reliant?” I asked again. Without any hesitation he replied, “ten thousand taka at a time.” Shankari Rani Karmakar was the chief of the women’s group and also of the centre of her village. Over the past five years she obtained loan four times totalling taka nine thousand and five hundred, the maximum single loan being four thousand and five hundred. She purchased three pit looms and yarn with the loan money and wanted to borrow taka five thousand for another pit loom. She planned to have six looms and at that stage she would use ten to fifteen thousand taka as loan at the time to become self-reliant. Without being guided by any plan or guideline, Shankari Rani had thus made her own simple calculation to win over poverty once for all. But Grameen Bank did not give loan above five thousand taka in a year. So she, like the other members, would go on applying for repeat loans. She would be better off than before but would still remain poor. Asia Khatun of Kaijuri village was a widow. She became member of a group three years ago and received three loans totalling eight thousand taka. She bought a rickshaw which was plied by his son earning forty taka daily on average. Besides, she bought paddy for sale after processing. She also had some land which was cultivated with hired labour. “You are now in a position to be independent of loan from G.B.” I commented. She vehemently opposed saying she would need loan indefinitely. Hamela Begum, also of Kaizuri village, received four loans totalling twelve thousand and five hundred taka with which she bought three milch cows, seed, and fertiliser for vegetable farming. Her husband sold firewood and her son earned eighty taka per week as an apprentice weaver. Hemela wanted to take loan every year as long as Grameen Bank exists. Jobeda bought five milch cows for which she got five loans totalling seventeen thousand taka during the past five years. She sold four of the milch cows and bought 46 decimals of land with fifteen thousand taka. Her husband worked as a day-labourer and the newly purchased land was managed by them with hired draft cattle. Ownership ceiling of land being forty decimals she had already become disqualified to remain as a member but she hoped to obtain further loan and the Grameen Bank had not taken any decision about her. Mokhtar Ali, also of Kaizuri village, became a member five years ago and he received four loan totalling fifteen thousand and five hundred taka. He purchased three rickshaws, two of which he had given out on hire while plying the third one himself. His daily income from these rickshaws was sixty two taka. He too wanted to have more loans to buy rickshaws so that he could hire these out.

I could go on interviewing more members but the pattern was already clear. The majority were still at the subsistence level requiring loan year after year and the fortunate minority who might have attained relative affluence through luck or intelligent management on their own had developed insatiable need for more loan. Both the categories wanted to be perpetually dependent on loan from Grameen Bank. In spite of the dedication and hard work of the field staff, Grameen Bank would be moving in this vicious circle of dependency syndrome unless a strategy for poverty alleviation with a cut-off point for each loanee was determined. This was the most challenging task facing Grameen Bank and other poverty focused programmes in the country. From the documents, publications and discussion with officials it did not appear that they were aware of this basic problem.

The writer is a novelist, an art critic and a former civil servant. (Source, Daily Sun, 09/03/2013)