Killing  the  Farmers;  Framing  the  Facts  http://www.thepoliticalindian.com/farmer-­‐suicides-­‐data-­‐myths/      SREEDEEP,  Fellow,  C-­‐PACT  

   The  distressing  phenomenon  of  farmers’  suicide  followed  by  announcement  of  waivers  and  compensations   has   hit   the   headlines   consistently   in   the   last   two   decades.    While   farming  ceases   to   be   a   lucrative  means   of   livelihood,   there   are   conflicting   opinions   regarding   the  factors   that   trigger   the   self-­‐immolation.   A   closer   look   at   the   data   sets   reveals   severe  inconsistencies  between  the  presumed  reasons  and  the  actual  trends.  The  macro  level  data  seems  to  reveal  a  set  of  inconsistencies  and  leave  us  with  several  questions  to  ponder  upon  instead  of  throwing  a  pattern  or  provide  set  answers.      Contribution  of  agriculture  to  Indian  economy  has  fallen  from  approximately  50%  during  the  time  of  India’s  independence  to  13.7%  in  2013.  While  agriculture  accounts  for  13.7  percent  of  the  GDP,  it  continues  to  support  and  absorb  50%  of  the  population.  

Out  of  138  million  farm  holdings  in  the  country,  117  million  are  small  and  marginal  holdings.  From  62  per  cent  in  1960-­‐61,  small  and  marginal  landholdings  together  are  now  close  to  85  per  cent  of  total  holdings  (2010-­‐11)  –  according  to  the  Agriculture  Census  (2010-­‐11).    

   

 

Farmers  Suicide  Demography  –  contradictions  that  prevent  generalization    Top  five  states  where  farmers’  suicide  as  percent  of  all  suicides  is  highest  (high  to  low)                        1.  Chattisgarh    

2.  Maharashtra    3.  Karnataka    4.  MP    5.  UP  

Top  five  states  as  per  number  of  farmers’  suicide    (high  to  low)    1.  Maharashtra    2.  Karnataka    3.  AP    4.  Chattisgarh    5.  MP  

Top  5  states  with  Highest  Suicide  rates  among  general  population  (Per  100000)  (high  to  low)  1.  Pondicherry    2.  Kerala    3.  Tripura    4.  Karnataka    5.  Chattisgarh    

 • It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  top  six  states  with  Highest  Suicide  rates  among  all  

cultivators  (1.  Pondicherry  2.  Kerala  3.  Goa  4.  Chattisgarh  5.  Karnataka  6.  Maharashtra)  do  not  necessarily  coincide  with  the  top  five  states  as  per  number  of  farmers’  suicide  or  with  top  five  states  where  farmers’  suicide  as  percent  of  all  suicides  is  highest  (see  tables  below).    

• Farm  suicides  rates  do  not  necessarily  coincide  with  Human  Development  Index.  Eg,  if  Kerala  (otherwise  considered  to  be  high  of  human  development  index)  was  a  country,  its  male  suicide  rate  (66.3)  would  be  highest  in  the  world.  Bihar,  on  the  other  hand,  which  is  one  the  least  developed  states  in  India,  has  the  lowest  suicide  rate  (6.3)      

 

                     

Farmers’  suicide  in  Maharashtra  –  institutional  credit  isn’t  sufficient    

                                                       

• Farmers’  suicide  as  a  percentage  of  all  suicides  in  the  state  has  gone  up  from  15.2  in  1997  to  28.7  in  2006  even  though  it  records  highest  percentage  of  outstanding  institutional  loan  (see  table  below).    

                                 • This   essentially   indicates   the   following   possibilities   –   1)   The   farmers   are   using   the  

credit   for  non-­‐farm  purposes;  2)  The   institutional  credit   is  consistently  diverted  for  paying   off   loans   taken   at   a   much   higher   rate   of   interest   from   non-­‐institutional  sources;   3)   The   amount   of   credit   from   the   institutional   sources   are   severely  insufficient.  

 

The  Relation  between  Diminishing  Land  holding  size  &  Suicide    

• The  relationship  between  the  proportion  of  marginal  farmers  and  suicide  rates  is  not  particularly  clear,  even  though  a  linear  relation  is  assumed  most  often  than  not.    

• It   is   true   that   the   states   (not   considering   the   Union   Territories)   with   the   highest  suicide   rates  amongst   the   farmers  –  Kerala,  Karnataka,  Chhattisgarh,  Maharashtra,  AP,  WB  –  have  some  of  the  highest  proportions  of  marginal  farmers.    

• However,   Bihar,   Jharkhand,   Jammu   and   Kashmir,   Uttaranchal,   UP,   Himachal  Pradesh,  and  Assam–  which  also  have  a  high  percentage  of  marginal  farmers  has  low  suicide  rates  and  therefore  do  not  fit  into  this  pattern.    

 

Cash  Cropping  and  Farmers’  Suicide  –  BT  cotton  is  not  the  sole  culprit    

• The  production  of  cotton  has  gone  up  from  10850000  tonnes  in  1997  to  33800000  tonnes   in  2013.  Similarly   the   total  area  under  cotton  cultivation  has  gone  up   from  8868000   HA   to   11773000   HA   in   2013.  Maharashtra   and   AP   produces   35%   of   the  total  cotton  in  India.    

• Now   considering   that   Maharashtra,   in   general,   has   relatively   low   percentages   of  marginal  farmers,  fragmentation  of  land  alone  can  not  possibly  be  the  sole  triggering  factor  unless   its  consequences  are  measured   in  relation  to   lack  of   to  multiple  crop  options,   severe   increase   in   cost  of   production,   lack  of   irrigation   in   rain   shed  areas  and  lack  of  minimum  support  price  mechanisms.  

Selected  State-­‐wise  Production  of  Other  Cash  Crops  in  India  (2003-­‐2004)  

                                                                                                                                             (Million  Tonnes)  

Crop/Group  of  Crops   States     Production     %  Share  of  production  to  All  

India   Cumulative  %Share  of  production    

Sugarcane  

Uttar  Pradesh   112.75   47.51   47.51  

Maharashtra   26.98   11.37   58.88  Tamil  Nadu   19.71   8.31   67.19  

Cotton  @  

Gujarat   4.03   29.06   29.06  Maharashtra   3.08   22.21   51.27  Andra  Pradesh   1.89   13.63   64.90  

Jute  &  Mesta$  

West  Bengal   8.47   75.42   75.42  Bihar   1.35   12.02   87.44  Assam   0.69   6.14   93.58  

Potato  

Uttar  Pradesh   10.16   43.88   43.88  

West  Bengal   6.90   29.80   73.68  Bihar   1.44   6.22   79.90  

Onion  Maharashtra   1.22   29.08   29.08  Gujarat   0.72   17.04   46.12  Karnataka   0.45   10.57   56.69  

Compiled  from  the  statistics  released  by    Ministry  of  Agricultural,  Govt.  of  India

Nature  of  Credit  and  Farm  Suicide  –  where  is  the  money  going  –  deepening  VS  widening  of  beneficiaries    

• According  to  the  NABARD  Report,  in  the  12  year  period  from  2000-­‐01  to  2011-­‐12,  the  flow  of  ground  level  credit  has  increased  impressively,  showing  almost  a  10  fold  increase  (see  table  below).    

• Around  `28  lakh  crore  have  been  disbursed  during  the  12  years  and  in  the  next  5  years  of  12th  FYP,  another  `35  to  42  lakh  crore  are  expected  to  be  invested  (12th  Five  Year  Plan  Estimates).    

• Increasing  volumes  however  do  not  increase  the  comfort  as  many  issues  and  concerns  are  emerging.  Out  of  roughly  14  crore  farm  households,  only  half  are  covered  by  formal  banking  institutions,  leaving  the  remaining  to  informal  sources  or  for  self  financing  (see  table  below).  

 • Commercial  banks  are  the  major  delivery  channels,  taking  almost  75  per  cent  share  

in  the  ground  level  credit.  The  co-­‐operative  banks’  share  is  around  15  per  cent,  while  that  of  RRBs  is  around  10  percent  (see  table  below).  

 

 

 

 

• Commercial  banks,  who  now  take  the  major  load  of  agricultural  credit,  show  a  tendency  to  prefer  “deepening”  over  “widening”.  Land  size-­‐wise  per  account  loan  disbursed  by  commercial  banks  shows  widening  gap  in  the  per  account  disbursements  among  the  three  categories  of  farmers  (see  table  below).  

 

Perpetual  debt  trap  –  the  curious  case  of  never  being  able  to  pay-­‐off  

• The  table  below  clearly  indicates  that  farming  for  marginal  and  samll  farmers  happens  to  be  a  loss  making  exercise  as  the  amount  of  monthly  earning  from  the  farm  is  lesser  than  his  total  monthly  expenditure.    

• This  invarible  means  that  a  farmer  is  either  compelled  to  work  as  a  wage  laborer  outside  his  firm  for  a  substantailal  part  of  the  year  in  order  to  sustain  his  family  or  he  has  to  bank  on  loans  that  he  can  never  possibly  pay  off  given  the  level  of  higher  expenditure  if  compared  to  his  income.    

   

Source: NSS 70th Round      

• Very  high  rate  of  interest  from  non-­‐institutional  sources  compel  farmers  prioritize  paying-­‐off  loans  taken  from  money  lenders  and  relatives  whenever  there  is  assess  to  cash  either  through  crop  sale  or  from  cash  crop  loans  from  the  back,  ensuring  depletion  of  resources  to  invest  in  land  and  a  perennial  debt  cycle  pushing  a  farmer  towards  an  undesirable  fate.    

   

Farming  not  preferred  –  the  most  frightening  fact  

• According   to   The   Situation   Assessment   Survey   of   Farmers   of   the   National   Sample  Survey,  2003  suggests  that  only  44.2  %  of  the  marginal  farmers,  35.3%  of  the  small  farmers,  44.4%  of  the  marginal  and  small   farmers,  28.1%  of  the  medium  and   large  farmers  prefer  farming  as  an  occupation.    

• NSS  2005  suggests  that  40%  percent  of  the  farmers  did  not  like  farming.  They  were  of   the   opinion   that   they   would   take   up   some   other   career,   given   a   choice;   27   %  found  it  non  profitable;  another  8  percent  reported  it  to  be  ‘risky’;  another  5%  did  not  like  it  for  other  reasons.    

• Declining   incomes   just   due   to   reducing   farm   sizes   are   a   serious   disincentive   for  farmers  to  continue  farming.  According  to  the  Latest  NABARD  Report  the  small  piece  of  land  however,  does  not  give  enough  employment  and  income.  At  the  same  time,  it   cannot  be  sold  also,  because   land   is   the   last  piece  of   insurance  and   in  any  case,  gainful  sustainable  employment  outside  agriculture  does  not  come  easily.  

   

 

 

Definitional  Dilemma    

If  the  statistics  have  sufficiently  confused  you  by  now,  please  take  a  note  of  the  possibility  of  all   these  numbers  being   flawed  because   the  definition  of   ‘farmer’   is   quite  dubious,   in   the  first  place.    

"National  Sample  Survey  Office  (NSSO),  defines  'farmer'  as  a  person  who  possesses  and  operates  some  land  and  is  engaged  in  agricultural  activities”.  In  this  survey,  farmers  were  captured  through  households  having  at  least  one  family  member  as  'farmer'.      And  here  is  the  census  definition  of  a  farmer  -­‐  "if  he  or  she  is  engaged  in  cultivation  of  land  owned  or  held  from  Government  or  held  from  private  persons  or  institutions  for  payment  in  money,  kind  or  share.  Cultivation  includes  effective  supervision  or  direction  in  cultivation.  A  person  who  has  given  out  her/his  land  to  another  person  or  persons  or  institution(s)  for  cultivation  for  money,  kind  or  share  of  crop  and  who  does  not  even  supervise  or  direct  cultivation  of  land,  is  not  treated  as  cultivator.  Similarly,  a  person  working  on  another  person's  land  for  wages  in  cash  or  kind  or  a  combination  of  both  (agricultural  labourer)  is  not  treated  as  cultivator."  

 • Note  that  the  definition  does  not  mention  the  number  of  days  one  must  be  engaging  

in  the  farm  to  qualify  as  a  farmer.  The  census  definition  is  also  devoid  of  any  time  dimension.    

• The  definition  also  does  not  mention  the  percentage  of  income  generated  from  the  farm  as  a  necessary  condition  for  qualifying  as  a  farmer.    

• So  if  one  meets  the  conditions  of  'cultivating'  for  a  day  or  a  week,  one  can  still  qualify  or  claim  to  be  a  farmer.  Or  even  if  a  single  member  of  the  family  is  engaged  in  cultivation,  the  household  can  qualify  as  a  farmers'  household.    

• This  liberal  definition  of  ‘farmer’  (their  total  number  in  the  denominator  while  calculating  farmers’  suicide)  is  questionable  because  it  subsumes  all  those  who  work  in  non-­‐farm  occupation  either  in  the  village  or  outside  or  spend  more  time  throughout  the  year  doing  anything  other  than  cultivating  or  come  back  to  the  village  for  a  short  while  during  the  harvest.    

• Similarly  the  numerator  in  the  calculation  (while  calculating  suicide  rates)  is  also  an  undercount  as  title  to  land  is  often  a  criteria  for  identifying  who  is  a  farmer  which  often  leaves  out  a  host  of  famers  committing  suicide  as  ineligible  for  being  considered  as  Farmers’  suicide  hence  ineligible  for  compensation).    

 Thus,  a  closer  look  at  more  macro  level  data  sets  on  suicide  rates,  nature  of  institutional  and  non-­‐institutional  credit,  stature  of  marginal  farmers,  and  other  state  variations  only  points  towards  the  lack  of  presumed/perceived/popular  correlation  between  farmers'  suicide  and  its  taken  for  granted  factors.