Why India's savings culture serves everyone except the saver
Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. A couple of years ago, I wrote about how India remains, at its core, a fixed-income country. I pointed out that even the Public Provident Fund (PPF)—arguably the best fixed-income option available—delivered only about ₹60 lakh over 44 years of systematic investing.
An equivalent investment in the Sensex, meanwhile, would have grown to roughly ₹2.3 crore. That’s nearly four times the wealth—the difference between being merely comfortable and being genuinely wealthy. And yet, India remains a nation of fixed deposit holders.
The question that has been nagging me lately is this: why does this persist? It’s not as if the information is hidden. Mutual fund advertisements are everywhere. Financial literacy campaigns run constantly.
The maths is simple enough. And still, behaviour doesn’t change meaningfully at scale. Part of the answer lies in understanding who benefits from India’s fixation on fixed income.
When you deposit money in a bank, it doesn’t sit idle in a vault. A substantial portion is channelled to the government through statutory requirements such as the statutory liquidity ratio (SLR) and cash reserve ratio (CRR). Banks are mandated to park a share of deposits in government securities and cash reserves with the RBI.
In effect, this creates a captive lending system, giving the government access to vast pools of cheap capital without competing in the open market. Viewed from the government’s perspective, the incentive is clear. Why would any government—regardless of political ideology—actively push citizens away from bank deposits towards the stock market? Every rupee that shifts from a bank account to an equity mutual fund is one less rupee supporting this comfortable
. Read on livemint.com