India’s banking architecture still carries the logic of an earlier development state. The Reserve Bank of India’s draft circular on the Lead Bank Scheme shows as much. It updates procedures, adds committees, and seeks tighter coordination. But the larger question is whether a framework designed in 1969 can still guide financial inclusion in an economy where credit now travels through smartphones, microfinance networks, small finance banks, NBFCs, gold loan companies and digital lenders.
The Lead Bank Scheme was created in the aftermath of bank nationalisation. The banking system was then urban, thinly spread, and largely absent from rural India. Formal credit barely reached farmers, small firms, or weaker sections. The state responded with a district-based structure. A designated commercial bank in each district was made responsible for identifying credit needs, coordinating lenders, and translating national lending priorities into local action.
READ | Cooperative banks: RBI must fix structure, not issue licences
Lead Bank Scheme and branch-era banking
That model suited its time. District credit plans, service area allocations, and consultations between banks and state officials helped push branch expansion into rural India during the 1970s and 1980s. The scheme gave administrative shape to priority-sector lending. It linked the banking system to district development planning, however imperfectly.
But the weakness in the present debate is easy to see. The draft circular seems to assume that the old structure only needs better layering. It proposes additional sub-committees within the State Level Bankers’ Committee system for financial inclusion, agriculture, micro and small enterprises, and payment systems. That may improve reporting. It does not answer whether the institutional design still matches the market it is meant to coordinate.
India’s financial map has changed too much for that. Credit is no longer mediated mainly through bank branches. Microfinance institutions have built scale in rural lending. Small finance banks and payments banks were created precisely to serve segments that mainstream banks undersupplied. NBFCs, gold loan companies and digital lenders have expanded fast. In many places, the issue is no longer credit scarcity. It is credit overlap.
READ | RBI’s push for banking transparency and the right to information
Financial inclusion now needs more than loans
That changes the meaning of financial inclusion. In the branch-expansion era, exclusion meant absence: no account, no branch, no formal lender. Today, many households have an account, a mobile phone, access to UPI, and more than one source of borrowing. Yet that does not mean they are financially secure. Some are overleveraged. Some keep Jan Dhan accounts but do not use them. Some move between formal and informal lenders because savings products, insurance, or emergency liquidity remain weak.
This is where the old policy instinct still lingers. Financial inclusion is too often treated as a credit-delivery problem. It is not. For many households, the binding constraint is not access to another loan but access to safe savings, predictable cash-flow support, and institutions they trust enough to use regularly. A framework that still places district credit targets at the centre risks missing the more important part of the problem.
Yet it would be premature to conclude that local coordination itself has become redundant. District-level banking gaps, government credit-linked schemes, state subsidy programmes, and local stress in farm or MSME lending still require a forum where institutions meet, review, and respond. The real question is narrower and more important: not whether coordination is still needed, but whether a single commercial bank can remain the organising centre of that coordination.
The regulatory map is also fragmented in ways the Lead Bank Scheme cannot easily handle. Banks and NBFCs fall under the RBI. Cooperatives, chit funds, pawnbrokers and other local financial intermediaries are often governed under state laws or separate regimes. Yet these are not peripheral actors in rural India. They remain central to how households borrow, save and bridge distress. A coordination platform built around scheduled commercial banks cannot adequately oversee a market that extends well beyond them.
READ | Why Indian banks are struggling to raise deposits
Rural credit markets need a wider coordination platform
That is why merely retaining the scheme with procedural changes looks insufficient. The case is not for abolition as a gesture of reform. It is for institutional redesign. India may still need district-level intelligence and state-level coordination. But a bank-centric structure is no longer enough. What is required is a wider financial-sector platform at the state level, one that brings together banks, microfinance institutions, NBFCs, digital payment firms, and state-regulated intermediaries where relevant.
Such a shift would also force policymakers to ask better questions. Where is over-lending rising? Where are dormant accounts concentrated? Which districts need savings mobilisation more than new credit lines? Where do digital payments work but formal intermediation remain thin? The Lead Bank Scheme was built to solve one generation’s problem. India now needs machinery that can see the next one.
The scheme had its place. It helped take banking into districts the market would not have reached on its own. But institutional success in one era can become inertia in another. The RBI’s draft circular is useful only if it opens the door to a harder rethink. India’s financial system has moved on. Its coordinating framework must do the same.