Liberals who blame farmer suicides on neo-liberal policies lack understanding of reality

There are two separate and connected issues. First is the state of agricultural indebtedness and the second is the rate of farmers' suicides. These two are related to the general issues of status of agriculture and the total number of suicides in the country and the causes for it. Critics, advocacy groups, activists and politicians, especially those in the opposition, have conflated farmers' suicides with that of agricultural indebtedness. There is some connection between the two, but one does not explain the other. That is, you cannot explain the farmers' suicides wholly in terms of agricultural indebtedness.

It is useful to look at the actual figures in each case. The suicide figures are actual as collected by the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB). But the figures for agricultural indebtedness is based on surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). It does not depend on actual numbers as in the case of the NCRB. The NSSO figures are in terms of percentages. So, in a way the correlation between agricultural indebtedness and farmers' suicides is inexact. What is needed then is a careful scrutiny of the figures and they could only lead to cautious conclusions.

In 2013, 38% of the 1, 34, 799 people who had committed suicide were self-employed. Of this, 8.7% were engaged in farming and agricultural activities. That is, 4,456 farners had committed suicide. But we do not have the actual profiles of those farmers who had committed suicide, the land they owned and the debt they owed for us to understand the problem of agrarian distress in concrete terms and understand its genesis. It would come as a shock to many that 22,742 housewives had committed suicide in the same year. It would be indeed be a travesty to generalise about deaths, either use the numbers to exaggerate the seriousness of an issue or to make it appear that it has not crossed the critical level. It would be better then that those who cite the figures of farmers' suicides to emphasise the issue of agrarian distress do not indulge in such vulgar emotionalism.

There is a need to look at the issue of agricultural indebtedness in itself. The point is not to make it appear that it is not important or serious enough, or that it is doomsday for agriculture and for farmers. There are problems with agriculture and how it impacts the prospects of individual farmers. It would be necessary to look at the figures as they are available in the surveys carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), which give us an approximate picture of the general state of affairs. Called the “Key Indicators of Agricultural Households in India” and carried out between January and December, 2013, the survey covered 4529 villages were covered, 35207 households in the first, and 34,907 of them in second, round were surveyed.

According to the survey, 90.2 million agricultural households formed 57.8 of the rural households. That is, a little more than 40% of the rural households did not derive their income from agriculture, either directly or indirectly. There is also a clear geographical divide on the extent of the agricultural households. Rajasthan had the largest number with 78.4%, followed by Uttar Pradesh (74.8%), and Madhya Pradesh (70.8%), all in north India. In contrast, the figures for three of the southern states are revealing: Kerala (27.3%), Tamil Nadu (34.7%) and Andhra Pradesh (41.5%).

If you turn from this to indebtedness in agricultural households. it turns out that 52% of them are indebted. This is the only figure that most media reports highlighted, without noting what the survey states explicitly, “The information included all kinds of outstanding loans irrespective of the purpose for which the loans were taken.” The rate of indebtedness is highest in the southern states where agricultural households are not predominant. Andhra Pradesh had 92.9% of its 41.5% of its agricultural households in debt. The average outstanding loan was Rs 2,13, 600 in Kerala, the highest. The figure for outstanding loan in Andhra Pradesh was Rs 1, 23, 400. It seems that the relatively richer agricultural states whose dependence was relatively less on agriculture, had a higher rate of indebtedness. There is a need to analyse further the exact nature of agricultural household indebtedness.

The information about agricultural household indebtedness can be usefully juxtaposed with another set of figures from the same NSSO study, “All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS)”. The average amount of debt (AOD) for a rural household stood at Rs 32,522 as on June 30, 2012. It compares with the average agricultural household debt of Rs 47,000.

As statistical figures go, these are mere approximations and they do not reflect the distress situation of individual agricultural and rural households. There is also a need to distinguish between the agricultural and rural households because the solutions offered to one may not be of great help to the other. It seems to be the case that there is a significant diversification of the rural economy, and perhaps it was always so. If 40% of the rural economy is not tied to agriculture as it appears to be, there is need for a closer study of the details of the idealised village economy as such.

People who have been speaking about farmers' plight, neglect of agriculture and the marginalisation of rural India in the face of the so-called neo-liberal economics and the process of globalisation appear to be romantics who have no understanding of rural reality. The Indian village has never been static, something which has been popularised by the Europeans, including the trenchant Karl Marx. Those who are taking up cudgels on behalf of the village economy should take pains to study closely the changes that are taking place in agriculture and in the village. They could still sing their eulogies and elegies for rural India but then they could do it with a little more credibility than they have now. Indian farmers and villagers need help as they face enormous challenges of a changing economy. But that help cannot come from irresponsible populists lamenting farmers' suicides.

There are two separate and connected issues. First is the state of agricultural indebtedness and the second is the rate of farmers' suicides. These two are related to the general issues of status of agriculture and the total number of suicides in the country and the causes for it. Critics, advocacy groups, activists and politicians, especially those in the opposition, have conflated farmers' suicides with that of agricultural indebtedness. There is some connection between the two, but one does not explain the other. That is, you cannot explain the farmers' suicides wholly in terms of agricultural indebtedness.

It is useful to look at the actual figures in each case. The suicide figures are actual as collected by the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB). But the figures for agricultural indebtedness is based on surveys conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). It does not depend on actual numbers as in the case of the NCRB. The NSSO figures are in terms of percentages. So, in a way the correlation between agricultural indebtedness and farmers' suicides is inexact. What is needed then is a careful scrutiny of the figures and they could only lead to cautious conclusions.

In 2013, 38 per cent of the 1, 34, 799 people who had committed suicide were self-employed. Of this, 8.7 per cent were engaged in farming and agricultural activities. That is, 4,456 farners had committed suicide. But we do not have the actual profiles of those farmers who had committed suicide, the land they owned and the debt they owed for us to understand the problem of agrarian distress in concrete terms and understand its genesis. It would come as a shock to many that 22,742 housewives had committed suicide in the same year. It would be indeed be a travesty to generalise about deaths, either use the numbers to exaggerate the seriousness of an issue or to make it appear that it has not crossed the critical level. It would be better then that those who cite the figures of farmers' suicides to emphasise the issue of agrarian distress do not indulge in such vulgar emotionalism.

There is a need to look at the issue of agricultural indebtedness in itself. The point is not to make it appear that it is not important or serious enough, or that it is doomsday for agriculture and for farmers. There are problems with agriculture and how it impacts the prospects of individual farmers. It would be necessary to look at the figures as they are available in the surveys carried out by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), which give us an approximate picture of the general state of affairs. Called the “Key Indicators of Agricultural Households in India” and carried out between January and December, 2013, the survey covered 4529 villages were covered, 35207 households in the first, and 34,907 of them in second, round were surveyed.

According to the survey, 90.2 million agricultural households formed 57.8 of the rural households. That is, a little more than 40% of the rural households did not derive their income from agriculture, either directly or indirectly. There is also a clear geographical divide on the extent of the agricultural households. Rajasthan had the largest number with 78.4%, followed by Uttar Pradesh (74.8%), and Madhya Pradesh (70.8%), all in north India. In contrast, the figures for three of the southern states are revealing: Kerala (27.3%), Tamil Nadu (34.7%) and Andhra Pradesh (41.5%).

If you turn from this to indebtedness in agricultural households. it turns out that 52% of them are indebted. This is the only figure that most media reports highlighted, without noting what the survey states explicitly, “The information included all kinds of outstanding loans irrespective of the purpose for which the loans were taken.” The rate of indebtedness is highest in the southern states where agricultural households are not predominant. Andhra Pradesh had 92.9% of its 41.5% of its agricultural households in debt. The average outstanding loan was Rs 2,13, 600 in Kerala, the highest. The figure for outstanding loan in Andhra Pradesh was Rs 1, 23, 400. It seems that the relatively richer agricultural states whose dependence was relatively less on agriculture, had a higher rate of indebtedness. There is a need to analyse further the exact nature of agricultural household indebtedness.

The information about agricultural household indebtedness can be usefully juxtaposed with another set of figures from the same NSSO study, “All India Debt and Investment Survey (AIDIS)”. The average amount of debt (AOD) for a rural household stood at Rs 32,522 as on June 30, 2012. It compares with the average agricultural household debt of Rs 47,000.

As statistical figures go, these are mere approximations and they do not reflect the distress situation of individual agricultural and rural households. There is also a need to distinguish between the agricultural and rural households because the solutions offered to one may not be of great help to the other. It seems to be the case that there is a significant diversification of the rural economy, and perhaps it was always so. If 40% of the rural economy is not tied to agriculture as it appears to be, there is need for a closer study of the details of the idealised village economy as such.

People who have been speaking about farmers' plight, neglect of agriculture and the marginalisation of rural India in the face of the so-called neo-liberal economics and the process of globalisation appear to be romantics who have no understanding of rural reality. The Indian village has never been static, something which has been popularised by the Europeans, including the trenchant Karl Marx. Those who are taking up cudgels on behalf of the village economy should take pains to study closely the changes that are taking place in agriculture and in the village. They could still sing their eulogies and elegies for rural India but then they could do it with a little more credibility than they have now. Indian farmers and villagers need help as they face enormous challenges of a changing economy. But that help cannot come from irresponsible populists lamenting farmers' suicides.