Indradhanush, a major step after the
nationalisation of banks in 1970s, is a brainchild of PJ Nayak
committee.
OBJECTIVES:
1)
Appointments:
Separating the
post of MD and CEO of PSBs and bring a new post of a
"non- executive chairman" which is a measure to bring accountability
2)
Bank
boards Bureau: The top posts of PSBs will be appointed by Bank boards
bureau which will replace the existing mechanism.It will have members,1
chairman,3 officials and 3 experts(2 experts should be in the field of
banking sector).
3)
Capitalization: Capitalisation of 70,000 crores in the next 4 years for meeting
Basel -III and RBI norms.
4)
De-stressing banks: Presently there is a huge amount of
NPAs.An
institutional mechanism will be brought to manage NPAs.
5)
Empowerment:
Indradhanush has stressed on empowerment of banks.This includes more
autonomy for PSBs and
less interference from govt side in day to day
functioning of banks.
6)
Framework of accountibility: For bringing in
accountability of banks, govt have decided to bring a new vector to
measure the
performance of PSBs, KPI (Key performance indicators).
7)
Governance:
There will be a
CRO(Chief risk officer) to make accountability of the
risks in PSBs.Less interfrence from govt: and appointments of top
officials by bank boards bureau are some of the administrative changes
the govt brought.
Issues Indradhanush could not answer:
1)
Disinvestment of PSBs: Disinvestment which is a necessary tool of growth of this time, is not mentioned in Indradhanush.
2)About
80,000 employees are expected to retire in coming two years. And some
more are expected to retire in coming years.
So , there is an opportunity
for govt: to restructure banks, but such a measure is not mentioned.
3)Even though issue of
govt: interference is mentioned in the policy,
how exactly it would be implemented is not mentioned.
4)Regarding
capital infusion, whether the govt: will infuse money to the PSBs
according to their performance is not mentioned.
Rather than giving
capital to all the PSBs, govt should have given it according to the
performance of the PSBs in a year.
5) How efficiently the Bank Board Bureau performs that remains to be seen.
If it acts just as a proxy for government end result might come out to
be the same. Moreover it's accoutability needs to be fixed and
government interference must be kept at the minimal level.
Not addressed - 2) Merger of the small banks inefficient banks with the larger ones.
3) Tackling the human resource problems from mid-higher levels.
REASONS FOR WEAK STATE OF PSBs:
- PSBs face three stark realities and their weak governance is the
underlying cause.
- Goernment owns PSBs so social welfare, Financial inclusion has to be there --> although
they are largely uncompensated for pursuing such goals — it’s difficult
to argue that the government’s style of running its banks has served
either itself or the banks well.
- High leverage of PSBs, politically connected
wilful defaulters, the burgeoning stress in the balance sheets and the
consequent deterioration in the supporting capital, declining
profitability and productivity ratios and the dwindling market share of
PSBs, are debilitating these banks and making them unequal competitors
vis-a-vis their private-sector counterparts.
- Third, as the major share
of financial savings is intermediated through PSBs that are also the
dominant purveyors of loan finance for infrastructure-creation and
manufacturing, continuous weakening of their balance sheets is a cause
for concern that is far too serious for complacency. One would like to
presume that these concerns are acknowledged by the political system and
bureaucracy, although that doesn’t become eminently apparent from
Indradhanush.
Against this bleak backdrop, the plan’s seven elements appear to fall short and are sketchy.