Though the committee does not explicitly mention the recognized taxonomy, it is possible to relate its recommendation. Nevertheless, there are a host of general types. Simplification of forms and procedures is welcome.

Discontinuance of the kind component in agricultural loans was anticipated. Discretion of bankers on no-due certificate may benefit the privileged more. Raising the sanctioning powers at the grassroots would help the borrowers, and in addition, provide a sence of purpose to the committed manager and infuse a dose of compulsion on the shirking type.Credit appraisal focusing on various income streams of individual customers would be more appropriate and effective in agriculturally developed areas.

On bankers' discretion on security, margin and collateral, the cut-off point can be Rs 20,000 accounting for inflation and in view of redefinition of the poverty line. There can be no opposition to inventives for repayment.

Considering the costs and returns, the benefits may, however, go the way of the better-off. Interest flexibility, some economists feel may be advantageous to the larger borrowers in the industrial sector at the cost of small borrowers in agriculture. If big farmers also pay higher rates, the small and marginal farmers who depend on them for loans may suffer more.

In the general type, there are a few recommendations directed at the corporate level. Lifting the 18 per cent target on agriculture and making it a corporate-level negotiation would mean shying away from the present bottom-up process, where district-level demands have a roleto play.

Needless to state further, corporate targets may be achieved through privileged centres/areas. Rationalising of returns was long awaited, but changes in the monitoring system should be geared towards making it more of a learning process than a policing mechanism. The committee has recommended doing away with compulsory rural posting. Everybody knows there would not be any volunteers and that rural branches cannot be closed. Bargaining between the management and unions on transfers would remain. The best for them and the stake holders, that is, bank personnel, is to evolve a performance-appraisal system which rewards real financial deepening. In other words, tasks such as inculcating saving and banking habit among the poor should be given weightage, while overall deposits and recovery are reckoned with.

The state governments are requested to provide support in recovery efforts. Some states have already realised the importance of recycling. The others should follow suit. But both banks and thegovernment should know that it is the organic link between lender and borrower, even a community-level dialogue through participatory banking, has salutary effect on recovery.

Regarding stamp duty on agricultural loans, if the revenues are not large, it may be down away with. Review of subsidy linked credit needs careful consideration. While the crucial factor is availability of credit, why should the poor be deprived of subsidy which the rich enjoy in variety of forms. The issue is in reaching subsidy to the poor in time and without leakages.

Credit facilities through composite cash credit limit, liquid savings products suiting lean and cash-rich periods, flexible approach to harness non-farm potential, were long due in agriculturally developed areas and the committee has rightly urged the hastening of the process.

Banks are required to prepare Special Agricultural Credit Plans (SACPs), the objective of which is to accelerate the flow, as also to substantially improve the quality of lending. Asstated earlier, the SACPs may lead to concentrating of credit in better-off areas. In a way, this would be against decentralised planning and bottom-up development process, advocated by Panchayat Raj (PR) system. Substantial modification in Service Area Approach (SAA) would also mean a measure against democratic structure and functioning espoused under PR. There is a misplaced paranoia on SAA, which only formalizes the tenets of retailing of services and what would have otherwise evolved over time. The much drummed choice to the borrower, an argument put forward for scrapping SAA, would accrue only to the rich.

The Committee believes that the poor, majority of whom remain outside the purview of formal agencies, are bankable if they are accessed through Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Self-Help Groups (SHGs). There are not enough and good NGOs available where they are wanted. SHG map of India is concentrated in South, which has disproportionate share of agricultural credit. While bankers are notcoming out to form SHGs on their own, in the absence of suitable NGOs, the SHG intermediation will remain more a regional feature of the South. There will be a blind alley encountered after the initial euphoria. The committee's recommendations, while they are not explicitly addressed to the irrigated areas, appropriately suit them; here they were long due and would certainly facilitate intended financial deepening. As for the weaker sections in the irrigated and large majority in the unirrigated areas, the suggested NGO-SHG intermediation has serious hurdles. In gist, the committee has less to say directly in relation to the majority. It is another matter that for the relatively backward rural areas, credit is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. In addition to credit, technology, infrastructure, extension and entrepreneurial motivation, have to be integral parts of the package of development intervention in these areas. Accelerted infrastructural development in these rural areas, therefore, gainsimportance.