In Bangladesh's development history, microfinance was not just a financial initiative; it was an innovation based on social trust, humanitarian responsibility, and long-standing relationships with marginalized people.

For rural women, landless farmers, and small entrepreneurs, microfinance was more than money—it was an opportunity for dignity and participation. But the recent push to transform microfinance into a banking structure fundamentally contradicts this social philosophy.

Banks and NGOs have different character, goals and responsibilities. The main goal of banks is to make profit, control risk and ensure financial discipline. On the other hand, the main objective of NGO-run microfinance is social justice, poverty reduction, women empowerment and capacity building of marginalized communities.

Trying to keep these two different philosophies under one roof creates a structural crisis, where ultimately the banking logic prevails and the social goal becomes increasingly weak.

When a microfinance bank is in place, the poor are no longer partners in development; they become merely customers. The uncertainties of their lives—disaster, illness, loss of life, or family crisis—are left outside the banking equation. Failure to pay installments is then no longer seen as a reflection of social reality; it becomes a financial failure or a legal risk. This gradually erodes the humane and compassionate character of microfinance.

The argument for the banking system can be made that it brings control and discipline. But the question is, who is this control for? Does it protect the rights and dignity of the poor, or does it simply ensure financial discipline?

The social accountability, local participation, and ethical responsibility that used to work in NGO-based microfinance have been squeezed out of the banking structure, making the system more formal but socially weaker.

NGOs have long filled the gaps of the state in Bangladesh's coastal, char, haor and hilly regions. They have not only provided loans; they have stood by people during disasters, run health and education programs, and developed women's leadership and social awareness.

If NGOs become mere financial institutions under pressure from microfinance banks, not only the NGOs will suffer, but both the state and society will suffer.

It should not be forgotten that microfinance was never created to imitate the traditional banking system. It was a social investment model, where social impact was a key consideration alongside financial sustainability. The banking structure does not know how to properly evaluate that social impact; it is numbers that matter, not human reality.

In this context, a fundamental question arises—is development simply a matter of keeping accounts, or is it also a question of social justice? A clear answer to this question is needed before microfinance can be transformed into banking.

Trying to run two different entities—banks and NGOs—under one roof does not actually advance development; rather, it weakens the social spirit of microfinance.

Today, it is necessary to preserve and strengthen the NGO-based social character of microfinance, not to chain it in the name of turning it into a bank.