Debt isn't the enemy: It offers many Indian households a lifeline
New insights from PRICE's ICE 360° research reveal that around 30% of India's 331 million households currently carry debt. But this topline figure hides wide variation across occupational groups; and the nature of borrowing, its purpose and its source offer a more nuanced view of household finance in India.
Also Read: Rajesh Shukla: India's growth is impressive but let's universalize the gains
Self-employed agricultural households, for instance, have the highest incidence of debt (38%), followed closely by non-agricultural labourers and other self-employed households (both at 28–29%). This suggests not just vulnerability, but active economic engagement. In agriculture, 57% of self- employed borrowers report using loans for productive needs like farming inputs and livestock. In non-agriculture, 31% of the self-employed borrow to expand their businesses. These are investments in livelihoods, not signs of distress.
Still, the picture is not uniformly optimistic. Debt burdens are more acute when considered as a share of income: debt-to-income ratios stand at 16% for self-employed agricultural households and 15% for self-employed non-agricultural households, compared to 10% for salaried ones. Among self-employed non-agricultural households, total household debt has grown by 12% over the past decade—the fastest among all groups. This sharp rise suggests increased entrepreneurial activity, but also greater exposure to financial volatility and market shocks.
The source of credit also matters. While 52% of indebted households borrow from formal institutions, this access is uneven. Salaried and self-employed households generally have better integration with the formal credit system. But labour households remain disproportionately dependent on informal lenders—62% among agricultural labourers and 58% among non-agricultural ones. This exposes them to exploitative interest rates, limited grievance redressal and greater financial precarity.
Also Read: Rajesh Shukla: It takes granular data to grasp Indian savings behaviour
The reasons households borrow further highlight this duality. While self-employed households often borrow to grow, labour households mostly borrow to survive. Among agricultural and non- agricultural labourers, 24% and 29% respectively borrow for medical emergencies, while 19% borrow simply to meet basic consumption needs.
Even among relatively secure salaried households, 24% report borrowing for health-related expenses and 15% for their children's education—pointing to gaps in healthcare and educational provisioning that credit alone cannot fix. These patterns make clear that the same instrument—credit—can serve different functions, depending on the household's economic position.
In short, India's household debt landscape is fragmented and deeply unequal. But it also reflects an undercurrent of aspiration and self-reliance. Policy must recognize both: that some households use debt as capital for growth, while others use it as a last resort.
To begin with, in agriculture, while formal credit penetration is comparatively high, a growing debt burden signals that access alone is not enough. A shift is needed—from reactive measures like loan waivers to proactive strategies such as improving value chains, widening crop insurance coverage and refining the Kisan Credit Card ecosystem to match the real working-capital cycles of farmers. Also, structural reforms in agricultural markets must accompany credit policies to deliver a lasting impact.
Also Read: TCA Anant: A household income survey will be valuable if clarity beats confusion
At the same time, the strong link between indebtedness and health-related expenses calls for better integration between credit policy and social protection. Medical emergencies are a leading cause of borrowing not just among the poor, but across all occupational segments. Expanding public health insurance schemes, like Ayushman Bharat, and linking Jan Dhan accounts to subsidized or emergency medical loan products can reduce the need for distress borrowing and protect households from falling into debt traps due to health shocks. Coordinated interventions between the financial and health sectors will be essential.
For self-employed households, especially those outside agriculture, credit must serve as fuel for enterprise. Programmes like Mudra have made inroads, but more customized financial products—like flexible working capital loans and digital credit tailored to urban micro-enterprises—can help these households grow sustainably. Such investments support not only household income, but also employment generation and local economic dynamism, especially in rapidly urbanizing areas.
Also Read: India needs reliable data to track capital expenditure across the economy
Expanding access to formal credit for labour households is critical. These groups—particularly agricultural and non-agricultural labourers—are overwhelmingly dependent on informal lenders, often paying exorbitant interest rates with little protection.
Simplifying know-your-customer (KYC) norms, broadening the outreach of microfinance institutions and leveraging digital platforms to deliver small-ticket, low-friction loans can bring these vulnerable households into the formal financial system. Inclusion here is not just about access—it's about protection and sustainability.
Also Read: Himanshu: India needs official poverty data for effective policymaking
Finally, building long-term financial resilience calls for investing in financial literacy. Widespread reliance on a single credit source and the high share of distress-driven borrowing indicate that many households lack the knowledge and confidence to navigate financial choices. Scalable models—from community programmes and mobile apps to school curricula—could create financial capabilities over time. A well-informed borrower is not just better protected, but more empowered.
India's household debt story is not a single narrative. It is a mosaic of need, ambition, risk and resilience. If policy responds to this complexity with sensitivity and segmentation, household credit can shift from being a crisis lifeline to a lever for economic transformation.
The author is managing director and chief executive officer of People Research on India's Consumer Economy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Committed to fair, balanced deal, says India after Trump announces 25% tariffs
India remains intensely engaged with the US to clinch the comprehensive bilateral trade agreement by autumn 2025 despite President Donald Trump's announcement of 25% tariffs plus penalties starting August 1, people aware of the matter said on Wednesday. Piyush Goyal, India's commerce and industry minister, during a Bloomberg Television interview in London, UK, on Thursday, July 24, 2025. (Bloomberg) In a brief statement, the commerce ministry said it had 'taken note' of Trump's statement and was studying its implications while reaffirming India's commitment to a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial' trade deal that protects farmers, entrepreneurs and small businesses. 'The government attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs,' the ministry said, adding that it 'will take all steps necessary to secure our national interest, as has been the case with other trade agreements including the latest Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the UK.' Indian officials and experts pushed back against Trump's characterisation of excessive trade barriers, arguing that his focus on goods trade deficit ignores the broader economic relationship where the US earns tens of billions more annually from services, education, and defence deals, and cited New Delhi's recent free trade agreements with developed economies such as Australia and the UK to demonstrate India's willingness to open up its market with protections for its vulnerable populations . People familiar with the negotiations said New Delhi expects Washington to follow Trump's announcement with a formal letter that would be analysed and responded to appropriately. The Indian negotiating team – which has held five rounds of in-person discussions with its American counterparts -- will in the meantime continue talks for a balanced deal, they added. One of the people aware of the matter pushed back against Trump's characterisation of India as maintaining excessive trade barriers, citing the recently signed free trade agreements with other developed economies including Australia and the United Kingdom where tariffs on most items were slashed. 'Hence, President Trump's generalisation that Indian tariffs are far too high, is not correct,' the person said. 'FTAs are win-win, and not one-sided.' The person highlighted Trump's focus on goods trade surplus while ignoring broader economic ties, saying: 'President Trump has said in a post on Truth Social – 'We have a massive trade deficit with India!!!' – which is just one side of the picture. Bilateral economic relationship is not only goods trade, it also includes trade in services, investments and other significant contributions to the US economy made by Indians.' According to government data, India had a $41.18 billion trade surplus with the US in 2024-25, exporting goods worth $86.51 billion and importing $45.33 billion of American merchandise. However, the people cited above argued this represented only a part of the bilateral relationship. The US gains significant revenue from financial, digital and e-commerce services, fees from students studying in America and defence deals, a second person explained. 'Such cooperation in services and contributions of Indians in American businesses have immense potential for further growth through BTA and other strategic cooperation, provided the US is not fixated with tariffs, and particularly with India's sensitive sectors, which are vital for the survival of millions of Indian subsistence farmers,' the person added. Ajay Srivastava, founder of Global Trade Research Initiative, said the US 'quietly rakes in $80-85 billion every year from India through education, digital services, financial operations, intellectual property royalties, and arms sales.' 'These massive earnings don't show up in the narrow goods trade statistics. When you factor them in, the US isn't running a deficit with India at all, it's sitting on a $35-40 billion surplus,' Srivastava added. The second person aware of the matter said India was negotiating a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement that included not just goods but 'other key sectors such as services, investments, non-tariff barriers, IPRs and customs facilitation.' 'We hope that a successful deal would help in balancing bilateral economic cooperation and prompt the Trump administration to remove reciprocal and punitive tariffs,' the person said. Industry leaders expressed concern about the tariff announcement's timing amid ongoing negotiations. Medical Technology Association of India chairman Pavan Choudary called Trump's move 'economically shortsighted and strategically misguided.' 'As a sovereign nation, India makes independent choices in defence and energy based on national interest and long-term strategic priorities. Attempting to punish these decisions through coercive trade measures is not only inappropriate but also counterproductive,' Choudary said. Agneshwar Sen, trade policy leader at EY India, warned the 25% tariff could directly affect key sectors including marine products, pharmaceuticals, textiles, leather and automobiles where bilateral trade had been 'especially robust.' However, Sen remained optimistic about ongoing negotiations, noting both countries were 'positively engaged' with the US team expected in India on August 24 for the sixth round of talks. 'I am confident that, considering our shared interests and history of cooperation, the two sides will be able to address these contentious issues constructively,' he said. Opposition slams Modi government Opposition parties criticised the government over the developments . Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said Prime Minister Modi should 'take inspiration from former prime minister Indira Gandhi and stand up to the president of the United States.' 'All that 'taarif' between him and 'Howdy Modi' has meant little,' Ramesh said, referring to Modi's 2019 rally with Trump in Houston. 'Mr Modi thought that if he kept quiet on the insults that the US President has hurled on India... India would get special treatment at the hands of President Trump. Clearly that has NOT happened.' Rashtriya Janata Dal MP Manoj Jha said his party was 'not very happy that it has happened under the rule of Prime Minister Modi,' while Communist Party of India MP P Sandosh Kumar described the tariffs as 'another insult to India.' DMK leader Tiruchi Siva demanded the prime minister answer questions about the tariffs in Parliament, saying lawmakers had 'not been taken into confidence.'
Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Trumpland: What if the world turned US trade war back on America?
AI image Tariff' Trump has announced a 25% levy on Indian goods entering US starting tomorrow, coupled with a penalty for India's continued oil and defence purchases from Russia. Prefixing his announcement on Truth Social with 'while India is a friend', the US president has sought to punish India for asserting sovereign choices in trade and foreign policy. With friends like this, who needs friends? The irony is poetic: the self-declared custodian of free trade is now its most protectionist offender. Economics is built around the principle of movement: of goods, capital, labour and data. This isn't just ideology, it's the physics of prosperity. Yet, the US, once the world's most vocal advocate for free markets, is, in the form of Trumpland, its most disruptive force. From semiconductor export bans and weaponised sanctions to unilateral tariffs and extraterritorial dictates, Trumpland has turned the global economy into a minefield of exceptions, exclusions and coercion. So, here's the question that can now be asked aloud: what if the rest of the world sanctioned the US? What if countries collectively paused the flow of rare earths, APIs, industrial machinery, telecom infrastructure, even data? Could the US survive the very conditions it imposes on others? In 2024, US goods imports hit a record $3.3 tn, while exports reached $2.1 tn, pushing goods trade deficit to $1.2 tn, a 14% increase from the previous year. Even after including services like finance and travel, total trade deficit stood at $918 bn, up 17%, the second highest on record. Trade gap with China grew to $295 bn, a clear sign of ongoing reliance. Beyond China, the US remains critically dependent on imports for over 221 essential goods, including microchips and battery components, with foreign sourcing levels between 90% and 100%. China supplies 70% of rare earths, and dominates the global graphite supply chain. Other key materials like lithium and cobalt are also heavily imported from countries like Chile, Canada and Argentina. In total, just four trading partners — China, the EU, Mexico and Canada — each account for more than 10% of US import value. These are not discretionary purchases, but foundational components of American industry. The US is not merely part of global supply chains, but also structurally dependent on them, never mind all that talk of decoupling and University's Budget Lab assessed that the US' 2025 tariff surge has raised its average effective tariff rate to 22.5%, the highest since 1909. This policy shift has led to a 2.3% rise in consumer prices, costing the average household $3,800 annually. Lower-income families are hit hardest, with those in the second income decile losing $1,700 a GDP growth is expected to drop by 0.9 percentage points in 2025. Long-term output is projected to remain 0.6% smaller, a permanent loss of around $180 bn a year. Exports have declined by 18.1%. Prices for essentials have spiked, with apparel up 17%, food nearly 3% higher, and new cars costing an extra $4,000 on from protecting the economy, Trump tariffs are eroding household income, slowing growth and adversely affecting America's economic Walter Scheidel explains in his 2017 book, The Great Leveler, entrenched systems rarely reform themselves through negotiation alone. Meaningful redistribution often follows rupture rather than consensus. So, what might rupture look like today? Imagine the world's major exporters including Europe, China, India, Asean and Latin America agreeing to a coordinated pause in shipments to the US. No semiconductors, no APIs, no telecom equipment. In a matter of weeks, American production lines would slow, inflation would surge, and financial markets would be rattled. It would serve as a powerful reminder that the US economy is not insulated by exceptionalism. It operates on the consent and cooperation of the rest of the world. This isn't about restoring balance. It's a call to deliberately hit the US economy where it hurts, to expose the double standards that define today's global order. In any functioning market, domestic or global, rules matter not only because they enable exchange but also because they constrain abuse. Participation in global trade is characterised by the principle of mutualism and benefits will flow only as long as responsibilities are this fundamental point, the US' economic bullying undermines not just the trust but the very ethos of the current global economic system. The world, India included, now faces a pivotal question. Should it continue to accommodate this exception, or begin to act as a collective? A coordinated stand by global exporters, in defence of systemic integrity, would affirm that globalisation is not the privilege of a single actor but the shared project of many. If the international order is to survive, it must demonstrate that no participant is above its rules. Trumpland may yet learn that the system the US helped create can continue to evolve without its dominance. And that the invisible hand, if constrained long enough, may simply withdraw its reach from the United States. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Regulators promote exchanges; can they stifle one? Watch IEX Jane St: How an options trader smelt a rat when others raised a toast TCS job cuts may not stop at 12,000; its bench policy threatens more From near bankruptcy to blockbuster drug: How Khorakiwala turned around Wockhardt Stock Radar: SBI Life rebounds after testing 50-DEMA; could hit fresh record highs above Rs 2,000 – check target & stop loss These 10 banking stocks can give more than 25% returns in 1 year, according to analysts Two Trades for Today: A metals stock for an over 6% gain, a large-cap chemicals maker for about 7% upmove F&O Radar| Deploy Broken Wing in LIC Housing Finance to benefit from bearish outlook
India.com
10 minutes ago
- India.com
Trump's 25% Tariff Bomb On India Explained: How It Impacts Trade, GDP, Oil And Defence Links
New Delhi: India has just been hit by a 25% tariff from the United States. Announced by U.S. President Donald Trump, the decision affects billions in exports. The news comes ahead of an important round of trade negotiations between the two countries. A penalty is also on the horizon. The reason? India's defence and energy trade with Russia. This latest action is seen as part of Trump's 'Liberation Day' trade strategy, designed to restructure trade arrangements in favour of the United States. The White House has been focusing on countries with significant trade surpluses and rigid non-tariff barriers, and India now finds itself among those targeted. In a post on Truth Social, Trump conveyed frustration over what he considers to be excessively high tariffs imposed by India and restrictive trade conditions. He also pointed to India's continued defence and energy imports from Russia, something he views as counterproductive, especially given the international demand for an end to the war in Ukraine. Trump added that starting August 1, Indian goods would face a 25% tariff, along with an additional penalty linked to the Russia factor. Although specific details of that penalty have not so far been released by the White House, U.S. officials indicated that it is meant to signal displeasure with India's growing reliance on Russian imports, particularly oil and military hardware. Impact on India's Export Economy India exports close to $87 billion worth of goods to the United States each year. The new tariff rate affects multiple key sectors, including pharmaceuticals, seafood, petrochemicals, leather, textiles and gems and jewellery. Industry experts have said the development marks a serious challenge. Agneshwar Sen from EY India, as quoted by The Times of India, stated that the tariff hike was unfortunate, especially considering the growing strategic relationship between New Delhi and Washington in recent years. He highlighted that certain export categories, particularly marine products, would feel the impact almost immediately. Talking to the daily, agricultural economist Ashok Gulati expressed concern over how this would affect India's shrimp industry. He suggested that the move highlighted unpredictability in Washington's approach and warned that India's textile exports would also face headwinds. He believes other countries like Ecuador might gain ground in the U.S. market due to lower tariff barriers and logistical advantages. GDP Growth Under Pressure According to Garima Kapoor of Elara Capital, as cited by TOI, the 25% tariff, if sustained over the year, could reduce India's GDP growth by as much as 20 basis points. She observed that it remains unclear how many Indian export categories would be exempted from the full tariff or charged at different rates. For instance, products like steel, automobiles and pharmaceuticals may see differentiated treatment. However, she warned that if pharma ends up included in the 25%, it could significantly hurt exports, considering the U.S. accounts for over 30% of India's pharmaceutical shipments. That said, Kapoor also emphasised the value of patience over urgency. She believed that a rushed deal requiring India to compromise on its agriculture or dairy sectors would have triggered deeper, long-lasting political and social consequences. In her view, a more comprehensive and well-balanced agreement, even if finalised later in the year, would serve India's long-term interests far better. New Delhi's Response, Diplomatic Stance India has acknowledged the U.S. president's remarks and has begun reviewing the implications. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry has issued a statement indicating that while the comments had been noted, New Delhi remains focused on reaching a mutually beneficial agreement. It reiterated India's commitment to protecting the interests of farmers, MSMEs and entrepreneurs, while ensuring the national interest remains paramount. Where India Stands Compared to Others India's tariff rate of 25% places it higher than most other U.S. trading partners. Japan and the European Union have secured rates as low as 15%, while countries like Vietnam and Indonesia face tariffs around 20%. Only China, at 30%, has been subjected to a higher rate than India. Trade analysts believe India's export competitiveness could be affected, especially in categories like textiles and electronics. However, some believe the impact on certain industries may be limited. Ajay Srivastava from the Global Trade Research Initiative told TOI that Indian pharmaceutical exports, which largely consist of generic drugs, might not suffer much despite the 25% duty, especially when compared to high-cost and branded European medicines that have lower tariff rates. He also said that India's position in smartphone exports remains relatively strong, with the United States importing largely from China and India and China's 30% tariff not offering a clear advantage. Temporary Setback or Lasting Policy Shift? Government officials in New Delhi are treating the tariff hike as a possible interim measure. Sources indicated that discussions were continuing and that both countries had already completed five rounds of talks. A sixth round is scheduled for late August, when a U.S. delegation is expected to visit India. Officials remain hopeful that a preliminary trade deal could be finalised by September or October. Vijay Chauhan of Deloitte India, as cited by the daily, stated that Indian negotiators had remained firm in safeguarding national interests and that the upcoming meeting in New Delhi might be a turning point. He stressed that the August 25 visit by U.S. trade representatives would be closely watched. The Road Ahead With tariffs now in place and more penalties expected, India's exporters face turbulence in the months ahead. However, both sides continue to engage. Whether the August-end discussions can shift momentum remains to be seen. Indian officials and industries, for now, are recalibrating their strategies, waiting for what could be a decisive phase in India-U.S. trade ties.
