Very interesting. My dh worked with the farmers issue. Sorry can't say more on that.
"It would be more realistic to admit that debt is not a passport to wealth in Bangladesh, India or inner London."
I found this sentence particularly telling, and the observation that microfinancing is working as an injection of wealth rather than an investment. Not in substance, as an injection of aid "wealth", but with an extremely high interest rate, and thus an injection of personal as opposed to state debt. It seems to have worked to transfer state aid debt to personal aid debt.
This is where personal debt relief would be more useful than state debt relief, which would simply result in the further enriching of state heads.
It also seems to imply, though shies away from saying so, that societal change is required, rather than just "more money". The problem is that in a country such as India, the laws for societal change have been passed. There is little left to campaign for, in a way. Discrimination on the grounds of caste is illegal. Dowry is illegal. Honour and dowry crime, obviously, illegal. But they are embedded in a way that it is not anyone's job outside the country to change.
Thus there is a dichotomy: where aid and investment comes from outside, it is embarrassing and difficult to admit there are oversight and societal issues involved with its internal distribution.
In south Asia there seems to be little scruple about the very, very, very rich taking from the very, very, very, very poor. When they ran out of money for the Commonwealth Games, largely due to corruption and poor oversight, extra money - millions of pounds - was found from a fund set aside for the scheduled castes, ie the Dalits. The news of this transfer was covered in maybe four paragraphs in one newspaper.