As a suicide is a very deep, very sad human tragedy, public discussion of suicides is expected to be careful and cautious. Unfortunately, this caution has not been observed in the case of so important an issue as farmers’ suicides in India, with the result that exaggeration and over-simplification, which are supposed to help the farmers’ cause are actually harming them.
Generally, the suicide rate of an occupational or other group is highlighted when it is much higher than the world average. In India the reported figure of 17,000 farmers’ suicides a year (during 2006) has been highlighted.
By going back to about a decade, it is stated that about one lakh farmers have committed suicide. Another frequently used figure is to say that 47 farmers commit suicide in a day, or two farmers commit suicide in one hour. It is easy to inflame passions by shouting that in this country the Finance minister P Chidambaram on Friday downplayed the lowering of India’s credit outlook by global rating agency Fitch, saying it is not a cause of worry as economic fundamentals are strong.
wo farmers are committing suicide every hour, but we would like to quietly ask — is this below the world average or above the world average?
As roughly one-sixth of the world’s people live in India and about two-third of Indians are, directly or indirectly, engaged in agriculture and allied activities, the world average norm for Indian farmers’ suicides would be about 10% or 11% of the world suicides. As about 9,00,000 suicides take place in the world in a year, the average norm for farmers in India would be a little over 90,000. The reported 17,000 suicides are much below this, even if additional suicides of teenagers, students, etc., from farmers’ families are added to the figure of 17,000.
The WHO World Report on Violence and Health says, “In the year 2000 an estimated 815,000 people died from suicide around the world. This represents an annual global mortality rate of about 14.5 per 100,000 population — or one death about every 40 seconds.” In other words, in the entire world 90 people commit suicide in one hour. The average norm for farmers in India would be nine suicides in one hour, while the reported figure is two per hour. Thus even after adding suicides by other family members, the reported figure of suicides for farmers in India is roughly about one-third of the world average norm.
Secondly, an impression has been frequently created as if all suicides by farmers are due to economic reasons. It is a reality that farmers across vast areas of India are in the middle of a real and serious crisis. I’ve myself documented many cases of farmers’ suicides in which their economic distress and indebtedness, sometimes aggravated by adverse weather conditions, had played a leading role. At the same time, many serious social problems are increasing in rural areas — dowry system and rising expenses of marriage, rapid spread of liquor vends in villages, tensions relating to caste and gender-based discrimination, breakdown of joint family, yearnings of youth which can’t be satisfied in the traditional system, etc.
Recognition of all these issues will lead to an understanding that badly-neglected social reform has to be an important partner of broad-based economic progress in our villages.
Estimates of suicides can be very tricky. As the WHO report cited above has pointed out, in a single country, China, the suicide rate per 100,000 range from 18 (data reported to WHO), through 22 (ministry of health data) up to 30 (data from the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine). This report says that generally there is a tendency for under-reporting. So any major policy initiatives based on suicide estimates have to proceed with a lot of caution.
This is particularly so in India where farmers’ suicides have become a volatile issue in some areas, where some groups have become hyperactive in recording almost all farmers’ suicides as those related to economic distress. In other areas, farmers’ suicides (as well as other suicides) are likely to be under-reported. But it is areas of over reporting which invariably get more attention and government help.
According to the Economic Survey (2007-2008), the government of India has approved a rehabilitation package of Rs 16,978 crore for 31 “suicide-prone districts”. This raises the question of how the government defines a district as more suicide-prone compared to others. Several people in Punjab and Bundelkhand region of UP and MP, for instance, ask why they were left out of this rehabilitation package even though many suicides had been reported from here.
But the even the bigger question relates to whether such special need-based allocation should be based on overall economic distress, or on the basis of just suicides. In vast flood-prone areas of the country, very large-scale distress exists, but will they be denied such special help till many suicides too are reported from here?
After visiting several areas from where a large number of suicides were reported, I’ve come to the conclusion that excessive, careless and exaggerated talk of suicides can actually lead to more suicides. All this talk creates a situation in which the tendency to look at suicide as a way out of a crisis becomes stronger. So what we need is less loose talk and more effective action to solve the problems of farmers.
Having observed this tragic situation in my campaigns in Bundelkhand and elsewhere one started emphasising the need for effective solutions instead of repeatedly talking of suicide cases. During the past year I visited about 60 villages in five states experiencing extreme distress to understand their problems.
These villages need low-cost technologies which are based on making better use of local resources. The dependence of farmers on expensive inputs and debts should be reduced. Community ties and social reform should be strengthened with active participation of women and youth. The stronger community ties should be used for water conservation and improving village greenery.
Most of the villages are passing through truly difficult times which may partly be related to climate change. In this emerging difficult situation the government has to become much more closely involved with the welfare of farmers and poorest villagers, but it has not yet geared up to meet this challenge.
Instead, we have knee-jerk reactions based on sensational but suspect suicide data. The government needs to learn from the hundreds of farmers who, right in the so-called suicide zones of Vidarbha, have initiated efforts for debt-free, low-cost, environment-friendly farming practices. If government policies also become favourable for such farmers, it won’t be long before these villages get back their cheer and smiles.