Money Lender


The money lender gets 3/4 of the crop and 20 acres as interest on 500 "bucks" (subtitle translation) which I assume is rupees of the time (1900 to 1920?). Is that as ridiculously high as it seems? Could someone translate those numbers into annual wages, cost of living, something a clueless American can understand in the present day?

Also - how did the money lender keep his monopoly? One would think there would be competition, or that villagers would lend to each other. The social isolation implied by the movie (neighbors NOT helping neighbors, such as clearing boulders from a field without help) must have been crippling to development and escaping from poverty. Perhaps it still is, in parts of India.

Ah well. In spite of 500 million people still trapped in abject poverty in India, and abuses that break my heart, millions are climbing out of poverty every year. I hope some of my projects can help accelerate this.

reply

To begin with, it was not a pure money lending business as it might look to a non-Indian. Rates quoted are immaterial. It was a system as vicious as it could get, any where in the world. Money was a tool of control over land and lives of millions of poor peasants. Rulers, religion and most importantly the so called Indian caste system were other tools, helping to this feudal social order. Money lender or a landlord is the most visible of the wasted interests but he wasn't alone. He had his partners of crime, less visible on the front line, so to speak.
The point was that once you get into the trap of these wasted interests, you never get out and mind you, the system was so full proof that there wasn't an option available of not getting into the trap!

PS: In the above paragraph, I'm writing in past tense, just to make sense. The situation has not changed in the present day India! From 1995 to 2013, millions of peasants have committed suicides for not being able to repay their loans. The trend continues and no one pays a damn about it in the present day MOTHER INDIA.

reply