Keya Sarkar: The problem with bearer cheques

Without a doubt, life in Santiniketan has become far easier than it was 12 years ago when I had shifted from Mumbai. Since I had chosen to work with craftsmen, who had probably never encountered an animal like me trained in cosmopolitan Mumbai, our ideas of time and delivery were poles apart. Most of the weavers, dyers, leather workers, embroidery artists, ironsmiths and bamboo craftsmen that I started working with then had no mobile phones and hardly possessed any means of travel superior to the bicycle. So, more often than not, after having briefed them on a particular job, I expected to see them only when I did.

Since initially I was only experimenting with different craft media, my orders were small and payments easy. Slowly, as I started having regular employees as well as craftsmen who worked primarily with us, the bulk of the payments began to be at the beginning of the month. With others, payments had to be as and when they came to deliver their products. As the amounts payable had increased over the years, I often did not have enough cash to part with when they suddenly showed up. The easiest way was bearer cheques, which they could cash on their way home.

Many of the artisans had accounts in Gramin banks, which took weeks to credit accounts if cheques deposited were from nationalised or private banks. Some of the weavers who came from Chhattisgarh or the bronze casters who came from Jharkhand, even tried to explain the problems they faced with their banks, which even I couldn't fathom. I nodded my head knowingly lest they think I am not as smart as I make myself out to be.

This suited all of us. As the business grew, I found myself making larger payments to an increasing number of people that worked with us. Now, almost all the artisans I work with have phones and motorbikes. So, despite the fact that the mystery has been taken out of their arrivals, and I know when to expect whom, I continued using bearer cheques.

It was only recently that I sensed a reluctance to take cheques and a preference for cash. Since many of those I work with are not forthright, I had to cajole them to know the reason for this sudden change of heart. They said the banks were creating a fuss about the cheques and asking for proof of identity to part with cash. Since it was not possible for them to always furnish identity proofs, they said they would rather take cash.

I found this change of dispensation a trifle strange and went to my bank branch. They said that it was true that bearer cheques of current accounts now needed to be supplemented with identity proof or authorised signatures. Considering we get messages on the phone for so many things from our friendly banks ever so often, I wondered why we hadn't been informed about this. The bank officer I spoke to agreed. "We should have let you know," he said sheepishly. "But why this new rule," I asked. "Because there have been cases of bearer cheques being picked up by people other than those intended for and cashed." But isn't that the risk one always had with all 'bearer' cheques and why only the ones issued from current accounts? Could a guy with an identity proof not also be a fraud? How would the bank compensate me if indeed he was?

I realised it was useless to embarrass him. I shall have to ask good old Googledada when I have the time!