The popular notion that is the title of the essay is, I think basically misplaced and antisocial. Misplaced, because it presumes (= assumes beforehand) a kind of human behavior that is mean and of a low order; where borrowing is, in general, associated with the culture of frauds. Antisocial because in a healthy society lending and borrowing is the basis of human existence. Especially in societies dominated by unequal income this tradition is definitely a healthy trend. Perhaps, the great Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen’s resounding thesis boils down (= is reducible) to this haul truth.
Two English phrases come to mind: ‘Beg, borrow or steal’, and ‘Borrow from Peter to pay Paul’. The first one says that borrowing at times becomes as compulsory as the other two actions in order to tide over (= overcome) a difficult situation to live. Then even the stain (evil reputation) that it acquires from being lumped. together with the other two ignoble practices is held slightingly. The second of the two, which is from the Bible, approves of borrowing if it is done from the affluent to meet the needs of a poor person like Paul.
The lending principle has a short but significant history. Giving loan to the needy without strings was considered to be a charitable act. Before the rise of Puritanism in England loan-giving was regarded from this angle. But such a charity is very very rare. Especially as commerce flourished the need was felt that the common man should be armed with the resources for trade. It was felt that if money circulated only among the capitalists the general health of the nation cannot be improved. So even the Puritan ethics sanctioned loan on interest as being a religious practice. In Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice’ Shylock plied (= carried on) his trade under the protection of this law.
Therefore, the above arguments clearly rule out the absolute validity of the popular saying that it is always unwise to borrow or lend money. On the other hand, those that have the surplus should come out a bit with a helping hand. Similarly those that borrow ought to have a feeling of gratitude towards the lender. The Puritan ethics above defines interest on loans as an equivalent (= equal in value) of the discomfort or sacrifice suffered by the giver of the loan.
Our society, at large, thrives on (= lives on) a monstrous (= vicious) principle, money begets money’. Naturally the tendency to hoard money for selfish ends increases by leaps and bounds. Naturally social frauds like Mr. Sampat of R.K.Narayan, Shovraj or super-frauds like Harshad Mehta flourish, because of this craze for money-hunt. As a result the real well-wishers of society are afraid to risk their fortunes (= wealth). They are afraid of being cheated by such frauds. Unfortunately, this is the ruling atmosphere today, which makes borrowing and lending so unpopular and unethical.
