Download ZNet | South Asia - Sa-Dhan

ZNet | South Asia
Why Suicides by Farmers?
by Girish Mishra; December 20, 2005
It was in the year 1997 that the phenomenon of suicides by Indian farmers
emerged. Since then it has assumed frightening proportions and till now more
than 25,000 farmers have taken their own lives. Only the other day a member of
the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly threatened to immolate himself in the
house itself and a few days later, the news came that farmers in a particular
village near Nagpur were preparing their own funeral pyres to immolate
themselves
These suicides have occurred mostly in prosperous regions of India, namely,
Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, Karnataka and Maharashtra. The farmers committing
suicides have come not only from land owning strata but from the fold of the
landless too. Undoubtedly, these suicides are symptoms of a deep agrarian
crisis. What is the nature of this crisis? Why has the spate of suicides been
witnessed only from 1997 onwards and witnessed mainly in the four agriculturally
prosperous states? Does this phenomenon have anything to do with the opening
up of the Indian economy and the process of liberalisation going on since 1991
under the aegis of the Structural Adjustment Programme of the World Bank?
These are some of the questions that the Tata Institute of Social Sciences was
asked by the Bombay High Court to look into and submit a report. This order was
passed by the High Court on a petition from the All India Biodynamic and Organic
Farming Association.
In 2004 as many as 644 farmers took their lives in Maharashtra alone. Most of
them were from three regions, namely, Vidharbha, Marathwada and Khandesh.
The Institute for an in-depth study selected a representative sample of 36
suicides, though information was collected for all the cases of suicides.
Certain important facts have emerged from the report. First, over the years the
importance of agriculture has relatively declined. At present it accounts for only
25 per cent of the GDP, though 75 per cent of the population living in rural areas
is dependent on it for livelihood. Second, 60 to 70 per cent of agricultural
production comes from subsistence farmers. Third, public investment in
agriculture has been continuously declining for many years. A rough estimate
indicates that the extent of reduction is 60 per cent since 1985. The report has
referred to a research study by R. X. Desai, which says: “Under the guidance of
the IMF and the World Bank, successive Indian governments slashed their
expenditure on rural development (including expenditure on agriculture, special
areas programme, irrigation and flood control, village industry, energy and
transport – the figures are for Centre and States combined) from 14.5 per cent of
GDP in 1985 to 5.9 per cent in 2000-01. Rural employment growth now is flat;
per capita food grains consumption has fallen drastically … the situation is
calamitous. Were expenditure by the Centre and States on rural development to
have remained at the same percentage of GDP as in 1985-90, it would not have
been Rs 124,000 crores in 2000-01, but Rs 305,000 crores, or more than two
and
a
half
times
the
actual
amount.”
The declining public investment in agriculture has led to poor maintenance of the
existing irrigation works, not to speak of their extension. Consequently, the
dependence on rains continues. It needs to be noted that there is a marked
absence of irrigation facilities in the three areas of Maharashtra. The total failure
or insufficiency and unseasonal rains push the farmers into a deep crisis.
Fourth, in 1998 when the BJP-led coalition was in power at the Centre, India was
forced by the World Bank’s structural adjustment policies to open up its doors to
global seeds vending corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, Syh genta, etc.
Consequently, the input economy underwent a big change. Farm-saved seeds
gave way to corporate seeds, which required relatively much more fertilizers,
pesticides and irrigation.
Fifth, available data indicate a rapid decline in the fertility of land, which had to be
arrested by increasing amounts of fertilizers and water. Slashing the subsidies on
fertilizers, irrigation and electricity increased the costs of production and forced
the farmers to mobilize more resources. The policy of liberalisation led to greater
and greater space for private sector into the production of fertilizers and
pesticides. Obviously, they have become more and more expensive. The report
has found that most farmers do not have any access to extension machinery of
the government for securing sound information as to how to tackle with the
declining fertility of land and the menace of pests. Their only source of advice
remains the agents of fertilizer and pesticide companies, who have their own axe
to grind.
Sixth, in the nineties especially after 1995, there was a sharp rise in the costs of
production because almost all inputs became more expensive. The increased
costs of production were to be made up by a rise in crop yield that required more
fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation besides an appreciable rise in the minimum
support prices for various crops announced by the government. The report
underlines that no support price during the last ten years reflected the rising
costs of production. The average gap between the minimum support price and
cost of cultivation was 38 per cent for paddy, 48 per cent for Bajra, 32 per cent
for groundnut, 50 per cent for sunflower, 38 per cent for cotton, and 47 per cent
for wheat.
Seventh, after the onset of new economic policies, job opportunities in nonagricultural sectors declined. Textile mills in particular downed their shutters. To
quote the report, “Declining opportunities in non-farm employment have further
aggravated the crisis. It seems that in areas where suicides have occurred, nonfarm options are getting limited. There are also instances where members of
families have returned to land after losing work in urban areas or have faced lack
of opportunities in the non-farm sector outside the village…. Thus, declining nonfarm opportunities together with repeated crop failures and indebtedness might
have created acute conditions of distress for families in rural areas.”
Last, frequent failures of crops, rising costs of production and the inability to sell
the crops at remunerative prices throw the farmers into the clutches of
moneylenders. While the farmers with a secure title over their landholdings are in
a position to secure some loans from institutional sources like banks and cooperative credit societies, these are not available to the landless that lease in
land. After they are entrapped in indebtedness, a number of them realize that
committing suicide was the only way out of destitution and humiliation. To quote
the report: “… there has been a sharp increase in the dependence on loans to
enable cultivation. The tendency to take loans increased in the nineties. The
farmers took their first loan from banks (banks gave loan only once, with a further
loan possible only after the repayment of the outstanding loan). The later loans
were from private parties to repay the bank loan…. Over 75 per cent of the
farmers had loan commitments to non-formal sources.”
The report has stressed, “The opening up of Indian agriculture to multinational
corporations and the withdrawal of GOI (Government of India) … has occurred
simultaneously. Moreover, the internal markets have become unstable due to
lowering of tariff barriers. Unfair terms of trade … have made matters worse for
those who are engaged in and/or dependent on … agriculture.” It is obvious that
the situation is serious.