end of march 2005. the average population per branch office has decreased from 64, 000 to 16, 000 during the same period. however, there are certain under - banked states such as bihar, orissa, rajasthan, uttar pradesh, chattisgarh, jharkhand, west bengal and a large number of north - eastern states, where the average population per branch office continues to be quite high compared to the national average. as you would be aware, the new branch authorization policy of reserve bank encourages banks to open branches in these under banked states and the under banked areas in other states. the new policy also places a lot of emphasis on the efforts made by the bank to achieve, inter alia, financial inclusion and other policy objectives. one of the benchmarks employed to assess the degree of reach of financial services to the population of the country, is the quantum of deposit accounts ( current and savings ) held as a ratio to the adult population. in the indian context, taking into account the census of 2001 ( ignoring the incremental growth of population thereafter ), the ratio of deposit accounts ( data available as on march 31, 2004 ) to the total adult population was only 59 % ( details furnished in the table ). within the country, there is a wide variation across states. for instance, the ratio for the state of kerala is as high as 89 % while bihar is marked by a low coverage of 33 %. in the north eastern states like nagaland and manipur, the coverage was a meager 21 % and 27 %, respectively. the northern region, comprising the states of haryana, chandigarh and delhi, has a high coverage ratio of 84 %. compared to the developed world, the coverage of our financial services is quite low. for instance, as per a recent survey commissioned by british bankers'association, 92 to 94 % of the population of uk has either current or savings bank account. steps towards financial inclusion in the context of initiatives taken for extending banking services to the small man, the mode of financial sector development until 1980 ’ s was characterized by • a hugely expanded bank branch and cooperative network and new organizational forms like rrbs ; • a greater focus on credit rather than other financial services like savings and insurance, although the banks and cooperatives did provide deposit facilities ; • lending targets directed at a range of ‘ priority sectors ’ such as agriculture, weaker sections of the population, etc ; • interest rate ceilings ; • significant government subsidies channeled through

consumers are increasingly turning towards non - cash payments. only 20 % of the cash stock is now used for payments, down from 35 % fifteen years ago. we will ensure that cash remains available. but if the current trend continues, we could face a future in which cash loses its central role and its ability to provide an effective anchor as consumers turn to digital means of payment. we cannot allow public money to become marginalised, for two good reasons. first, just a few global players have come to dominate certain segments of the payments market, such as card payments and e - commerce. this trend could be accentuated by the expansion of big techs, which can offer payment services leveraging their large consumer base and dominant position in related markets. this could result in an uneven playing field that harms competition and raises data privacy concerns. and by creating further dependencies on non - european providers, it could increase risks to europe ’ s strategic autonomy and threaten monetary sovereignty if central bank money is no longer at the heart of the payment system. second, even digital payments will ultimately depend on the anchoring role of public money to function smoothly. confidence that “ one euro is one euro ” whatever form it takes rests on our ability to convert, at par, private money – such as funds held in bank deposits or digital wallets – into public money, which is the safest form of money available. this possibility of conversion reinforces confidence in the various forms of private money used for euro payments, ensuring the smooth functioning of the payment system. recent developments in the market for crypto - assets illustrate that it is an illusion to believe that private instruments can act as money when they cannot be converted at par into public money at all times. despite claims that cryptos are a trustworthy form of “ currency ” free from public control, they are too risky to act as a reliable means of payment. they behave more like speculative assets and raise multiple public policy and financial stability concerns. [ 4 ] anyone investing in cryptos must be prepared to lose all their investment. to mitigate these risks, so - called stablecoins have emerged and have the potential to become globally systemic, especially if issued by big techs. but while the value of stablecoins is linked to what their issuers describe as “ reserve assets ” and adequate regulation and oversight could reduce risks, stablecoins are not risk - free. [ 6 ] there is no guarantee that they can be redeemed at par at any