All publications of IN-148916 Janakiraman Ram . दिल्ली , भारत
THE HYPOCRISY OF THE BANKS ON THE PRETEXT OF TOP-UP LOAN OFFER
It’s good to see and encouraging that the penetration of banking services has reached the nook and corner of India ensuring almost every alternative household with at least one bank account is a remarkable achievement. And it is directly proportional to widespread usage of smart phones. Here the technology played a key role in plugging the gap and kept the banks within the reach of customers. It is convenient and safe particularly in this pandemic period to have a digital transaction instead of handling the hard cash. Given in this background, we should also acknowledge the fact that every innovation comes with new challenges and leaves behind some loopholes which needs to be fixed soon.
You are maybe a salaried class, or self-employed, it is inevitable that our day-to-day life one way or the other, depends on the banks and its services in this digital era. Here I thought would be appropriate to caution you all by belling the cat at least now. It may not be appropriate to place the entire banking sector in a bad light and in a sweeping generalization of looting in nature. But again, a considerable number of players in the industry are indulging in such an exploitation to loot its customers financially by offering top-up loan to the existing customers with decent repayment history.
Let us come to the real issue that we inclined to discuss. Assume that you have availed a personal loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest rate of 14% for two years period in any bank particularly in private banks. I don’t know, how many of you aware that the EMI that we are supposed to pay has two components in it. One is the interest amount and the principal amount. For example, if you are paying Rs. 4750/- as EMI every month for 24 months, Out of Rs. 4750/-, 60% (Rs. 2850/-) will go towards the interest and remain 40% (Rs. 1900/-) will be credited towards the principal amount you borrowed.
Almost all the banks are following the same lending policy that, if a customer borrowed a personal loan is not eligible to apply for fresh loan with same bank till, he/she completes the EMI payment for at least 12 months from the date of the existing loan borrowed. There is nothing wrong in ensuring a considerable part of the amount is coming back to the bank while by not letting the same customer to borrow again before the cut off period.
At the same time, once a customer completes 12 EMI successfully, the hypocrisy of the bank will start emanates and exposed in the name of top-up loan offer with attractive rate of interest much lower than the existing personal loan. It is nothing but, “a bait to the trap “that we are un aware of and obviously will put the customer into limbs of an octopus. Now the predator (bank) will further try to lure the prey (customer) by assuring them that the existing personal loan can be merged with the new top-up loan. So that, the existing loan will entirely be quashed and there will be no more EMI apart from the new loan.
One must be very careful, before agreeing for such an offer of top-up loan, which is according to me an indirect loot. Upon completing the 12 EMI successfully, one must understand and it is clearly established, that you would have already paid major portion of the interest amount you are supposed to pay for the whole loan period you have agreed upon in one year itself with 60:40 ratio of interest and principal respectively. Now if the remaining outstanding loan amount is fetched as principal to the new loan which yet to be sanctioned is something sounds like, an indirectly levy of interest rate twice for the same principal amount borrowed, though the offer comes with the interest of marginally lower than that of an existing loan. Thank you
CABINET RESHUFFLE AND SUBSEQUENT CONTROVERSY
Different states might have seen the recent cabinet reshuffle in the union government of India with different perspective according to the local political scenario. Some sees it as a pragmatic move, some sees it as an act done with an intend to appease electorates of the states going for assembly election in the near future. The number ministerial berths and key portfolios accorded some states suggested the same. There is also a strong reason to believe that, it is coinciding with the recent statement by the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat in Ghaziabad on lynching, a stand contrary to the traditional RSS ideology.
Notwithstanding, the cabinet reshuffle came with a representation to the state in the extended cabinet, the happiness didn’t last long for the people of Tamil Nadu as the news came with a triggering term “Kongu Nadu” in the biodata of the oath taking the then minister of state designate Dr. L Murugan the State BJP president, appointed as the minister of state for Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
It is widely perceived across Tamil Nadu as a “tit for tat” narrative by BJP to counter the DMK regime’s reference to the Delhi with the term “Union government” instead of “central government” in its official correspondence and media briefings. Off course, both are constitutionally correct. Constitution is very much permitting citizens or entities to refer Delhi as “Union government” at the same time, for administrative reasons union government is wielded with the power to bifurcate or declare any state as union territory.
Here the important question is from where the call for separate state raised to support the BJP’s argument. Neither the citizens nor any group or entity knocked the doors of union government to bifurcate the state. In that context, while there was no such representation to that effect, what is the necessity for the government to moot this idea arbitrarily. For mere political counter attack to the rivalries of BJP in Tamil Nadu, the sentiments of common man with no political leaning should not get affected or shattered. Thank you