1

Bt cotton has often been criticized for being the primary

cause behind an increase in the incidence of farmer suicides in

India. While this genetically modified (GM) species certainly

plays a role, it is by no means the principle cause. Since the

end of British colonial India, rural agrarian lifestyles have

been wrought with Western notions of development and

industrialization. Beginning in the 1970s with the Green

Revolution and followed by economic neoliberalism, by the time Bt

cotton arrived in India, after decades of hardship, farmers were

desperate to try anything to increase productivity and profit.

However, small scale, lower caste farmers were not initially

informed of the high costs of inputs and thus attained a large

debt load at a high interest rate. The cultural and social

fabric of rural communities had also been eroded and government

policies were not in favour of small scale farmers, making them

even more susceptible to depression and suicide. The root

2

systemic causes of the suicides need to be addressed and policies

need to be implemented to improve the situation from a grassroots

level. While Bt cotton has played a definite role in rural

stress and indebtedness, it is by no means the primary cause of

the increase in farmer suicides in India.

In March 2002, India’s first GM seed, Bt cotton, was

approved for commercial use in the country.1 Bt cotton is so

called because a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, is

introduced into its genetic makeup. It then is able to produce a

toxin which kills the American bollworm, a common pest for Indian

cotton. The seed is manufactured by American biotechnology

company Monsanto and within India it is distributed by the Indian

company Mahyco, under the name of Bollgard.2 By 2007, India had

the largest area in the world growing Bt cotton, with 6.2 million1 “Behind the Label: India’s Genetically Modified Cotton.” Directed by Sebastiano Tecchnio. 2011. Films Media Group. http://digital.films.com.cyber.usask.ca/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=53319.2 Afsar H. Jafri and Vandana Shiva, “Failure of GMO’s in India,” Synthesis/Regeneration 33 (2003): 34.

3

hectares.3 Most of this is grown in the “cotton belt,” which

includes the states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra.

Bt cotton is often cited as the cause for an increase in cotton

production in the country. From 2001 to 2008, cotton production

increased from 15.8 million bales annually to 31.5 million. This

increase in productivity, however, is not uniform among all

states or even farms within states.4 Bt cotton has been at the

centre of a number of controversies, but perhaps the most widely

reported accusation has been that it is primarily responsible for

an increase in farmer suicides in India due to the debt incurred

as a result of producing it.5

Studies have shown that between 1997 and 2007, suicide rates

by the Indian population in general and by Indian farmers have

3 Guillaume Gruere and Debdatta Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment,” The Journal of Development Studies 47 (2011): 316.4 Gruere and Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India,” 320.5 Gruere and Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India,” 316.

4

increased slowly, but in general remain relatively stable for

both categories, suggesting no dramatic changes. However, the

statistics for specific states are different. Andhra Pradesh,

Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra together account for

52-65% of all farmer suicides in the country from 1997-2006,

suggesting some commonality in these particular states.6 Of

these states, Maharashtra had the highest share of farmer

suicides, with roughly 4,100 documented cases in 2004. Farmer

suicides in Andhra Pradesh began relatively low, but increased

steadily until 2007. At this point, the state government banned

the use of three types of Bt cotton, recognizing it may be a

problem. What these four states all have in common are that they

are main cotton producing states in India and after 2002, when Bt

cotton was introduced, there was a corresponding notable increase

in suicide rates.7 As a common method of suicide for Indian

6 Gruere and Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India,” 318.7 Anuradha Mittal, “Harvest of Suicides: How Global Trade Rules Are Driving Indian Farmers to Despair,” Earth Island Journal 23 (2008): 55-57.

5

farmers is to drink pesticide as protest,8 this may point to the

fact that the farmers see the GM seeds as the reason for their

crop failure and indebtedness. However, the complex socio-

economic climate surrounding the suicides is much more complex

and has been unfolding for decades, since colonial Britain

destroyed the Indian textile industry.9

Post-colonially, the Green Revolution of the 1970s was seen

as a beacon of hope with its High Yielding Variety (HYV) seeds

which were believed to have the capacity to increase grain yields

and farmers’ incomes, while decreasing hunger. The Revolution

was primarily based on the assumption that humans can overcome

nature and its constraints, a typical Western notion of

development.10 The Revolution was a continuation on the West’s

path to destroying India’s traditional way of life, particularly 8 “Behind the Label: India’s Genetically Modified Cotton.”9 Michael Kirkpatrick, “Lecture 12: Direct British Rule in India” (Class Lecture, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. October 14, 2015).10 Shiva, Vandana, The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics (New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd., 1991) 15.

6

traditional farming practices, which had worked successfully for

centuries. Prior to the Green Revolution in India, the country

had been pursuing an agricultural development policy based on

tradition through strengthening ecology and increasing the self-

reliance of small scale subsistence farmers. But the changes the

Revolution brought were completely the opposite and shifted the

focus to increasing yields and productivity through heavy

reliance on fertilizers and pesticides with no concern for the

environment. As a consequence, many waterways were polluted and

much of India’s best farmland was destroyed. While the HYV saved

some from inevitable famine and malnutrition, farmers were left

discontent, in debt, and dependent on corporate suppliers for

seeds and other inputs, rather than being able to rely on

7

traditional methods.11 12 13 The legacy of the havoc brought by

the Green Revolution continues today.

The Green Revolution was followed by the arrival of

neoliberalism to India in the 1980s. India implemented free-

market economic reforms and neoliberal policies for agriculture,

including cuts in subsidized agricultural inputs. The opening of

Indian agriculture to free trade under the stipulations of the

World Bank and World Trade Organization exposed Indian farmers to

unfair global trade rules under which governments of countries in

the global North continued to subsidize their crops and dump

cheap cotton in India, while the countries of the global South

were not allowed to do so.14 As a result, the price of cotton on

the world market has fallen by more than a third since 1994 and 11 Michael Specter, “Seeds of Doubt: An activist’s controversial crusade against genetically modified crops,” The New Yorker, August 25, 2014, accessed March 16, 2015, http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt.12 Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, 19.13 Frances Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset, and Luis Esparza, World Hunger: 12 Myths (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1998) 74.14 Mittal, “Harvest of Suicides,” 55.

8

the Indian government has also cut the guaranteed price it pays

for cotton, causing a huge increase in rural poverty. 15 16 It was

at the time of this economic liberalization that farmer suicides

began to become an issue, as 5000 farmers (mainly of cotton),

committed suicide in Andhra Pradesh between 1998 and 2005, the

same time the state government was entering into a Structural

Adjustment Program with the World Bank.17 Multiple studies have

shown similar occurrences elsewhere, as farming is deemed to be a

high risk profession for suicide in other countries besides

India, including Canada, Australia, England, and Sri Lanka.18 An

increase in economic liberalization and input costs along with

decreased prices and government assistance has also been tied to

15 “Cotton suicides: The great unravelling.” The Economist, January 18, 2007. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/8548670.16 Moore Lappe, et al., World Hunger, 74.17 Mittal, “Harvest of Suicides,” 56.18 Amol R. Dongre and Pradeep R. Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra India: a qualitative exploration of their causes,” Journal of Injury and Violence Research 4 (2012): 2.

9

an increase in farmer suicides in the United Kingdom and China,

making the problem of farmer suicides global.19

However, there are certain other additional factors which

make the Indian issue more complex. The changes brought forcibly

to India by development, industrialization, and neoliberalism

also increased the Western notion of individualization which is

linked to a disintegration of family and community, which in turn

is linked to an increase in suicide rates.20 As development in

its most basic understanding is the rejection of traditional ways

of life and ways of farming, this destruction of links with the

soil leads to a destruction of links within a society as well. 21

This is referred to the Durkheimian argument for suicide and is

illustrated perfectly in the case of India. 22 Emile Durkheim,

19 B.B. Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead’: Farmer Suicides in Maharashtra, Western India,” The Journal of Peasant Studies 32 (2005): 267-68.20 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 263.21 Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, 189.22 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 252.

10

one of the first official social scientists, argued that in non-

industrial (or “primitive”) societies, suicide is the effect of

social cohesion, whereas in industrial societies, it results as

an absence of community and a lack of belonging, observed in

higher instances of a sense of isolation, alienation, and

individualization. Suicide in this sense is a characteristic

feature of an industrial capitalist society. In contrast, in

pre-industrial societies, suicide is seen as altruistic, a direct

effect of the rootedness of the subject in their community and

the act is a result of one feeling they are releasing their loved

ones from a burden. Because of this, an individual is also at

greater risk of committing suicide if they are part of a smaller

family or are unmarried, due to perceiving to have less utility,

duties, and obligations.23 Suicide in India, then, can be seen

as a direct result of individualism and neoliberalism as agrarian

23 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 243-246.

11

societies quickly become estranged from their traditional ways of

life, especially during a time of rapid economic growth and

change. The suicides, therefore, are an indicator of deeper

seeded problems afflicting the rural economy and society. While

the media and government attribute these deaths to crop failure,

increasing debt, and rising costs of cultivation, multiple

studies have shown that economic setbacks do not automatically

result in farmer suicides, meaning social causes play a part as

well.24

Besides the harsh social and economic situation brought by

neoliberalism and development, in India there is the added layer

of the notion of caste. Industrialization in India brought many

changes in class and socio-economic position as land changed

ownership through reforms and the new social order challenged the

historical dominance of the higher castes.25 Generally, however,

24 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 252.25 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 247.

12

smaller scale farmers are still of lower and medium caste

families. For them, any crop failure is perceived as a personal

failure and an inability to provide for their families well-

being.26 Due to caste discrimination, these farmers are often

illiterate and therefore cannot obtain the skills and knowledge

required for the advanced agricultural operations they wish to

undertake. Cultivating cotton, never mind Bt cotton, requires

extensive technical knowledge, such as soil type, seed varieties,

and timing and quantity of manure, fertilizer, and pesticide

application. In addition, the government sponsored agricultural

extension services and education regarding Bt cotton focused on

large farmers of the upper caste.27 It is obvious many smaller,

lower caste farmers were attempting to improve their livelihoods

through cultivating Bt cotton, but there was a clear gap between

26 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 263.27 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 259-260.

13

their expectations and realization and this was largely due to a

lack of education.28

When Bt cotton was introduced in 2002, it was promoted as

being the second Green Revolution. Small, lower caste Indian

farmers naturally turned to this second technological fix to

overcoming nature in the hopes it would be a cure for the

political, social, cultural, environmental, and economic problems

inherited from colonialism, the Green Revolution,

industrialization, development, and neoliberalism. 29 30 However,

the data which was presented in its advertising came from test

plots which had optimal growing conditions, not actual farmers

fields. Nowhere it has been cultivated in the world, including

India, have seen the results promised.31 It was sold on the

claim it would give a yield of 1500kg/acre. However, the average

28 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 262.29 Mittal, “Harvest of Suicides,” 56.30 Shiva, The Violence of the Green Revolution, 192.31 Jafri and Shiva, “Failure of GMO’s in India,” 34.

14

in the state of Maharashtra has been 120kg/acre and many farmers

have had total crop failure some years. Studies have also

concluded Bt cotton does not protect plants from the American

Bollworm and there has actually been an increase of 250-300% in

attacks by other non-target pests and an increase in other fungal

diseases, such as root rot.32 Farmers were soon disappointed with

Bt cotton and a reported 60% of those in Maharashtra failed to

recover their input costs after their first harvest.33

The reasons for this failure are many. Bt cotton is

genetically engineered so that it only works with certain

herbicides, meaning the farmer must purchase the whole package.34

As stated earlier, many small farmers in India are illiterate and

do not own a television or radio. This means they are reliant on

local dealers and private agencies to gather vital information

about methods of production for the cotton, as the government did32 Jafri and Shiva, “Failure of GMO’s in India,” 33.33 Mittal, “Harvest of Suicides,” 56.34 Moore Lappe, et al., World Hunger, 75.

15

not educate them. As a result, they were often sold and

recommended high quantities of the most expensive inputs which

were not always suitable and which they bought, thinking the

higher yields they expected would result in the profit needed to

pay it back. Moreover, some farmers sprayed on their own when

they did not need to or using the wrong kind of pesticide,

leading to the bollworm developing a resistance and pest

infestation returned.35 As banks refuse to loan the small

farmers money, they have to get loans from private money lenders

with high interest rates, increasing their debt even further.36

In addition, the cost of the GM seeds themselves are much

more expensive than natural varieties and this type of cotton

requires more irrigation, something the farmers were also not

initially informed about.37 Because many of these farmers could

not afford irrigation, they were reliant on rain coming at the 35 Gruere and Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India,” 322.36 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 260.37 Jafri and Shiva, “Failure of GMO’s in India,” 34.

16

right time, which it often does not.38 As well, Monsanto

requires farmers must purchase the expensive seed each year.

Even if this was not a requirement, the crops often do not even

produce their own seed as the seeds are sterile and farmers are

guaranteed a better crop by purchasing new seed. It has been

estimated that Bt cotton farmers have 80% more debt than non-Bt

cotton producers, as they were spending more on pesticides and

pest management. In addition, due to the need for water, in

drought years, non-Bt farmers (those cultivating natural

varieties semi-resistant to drought), earned 200% more at

harvest.39

Most suicides are by small farmers who derive most of their

income from the failed crops. Medium and large scale farmers can

afford irrigation and multiple crops, meaning the impact of a bad

38 “Cotton suicides: The great unravelling.”39 “Behind the Label: India’s Genetically Modified Cotton.”

17

harvest is less severe.40 Suicides of the small farmers nearly

all coincided with the harvest period, underlining the economic

importance of crop failure for these farmers, whereas suicides by

medium and large farmers occurred at different points in the

agricultural cycle, meaning economic reasons were not as great

for them.41 It has been shown in Australian studies that there

is a strong correlation between droughts and suicide rates among

farmers. This is also seen in the high rate of suicide after the

Great Depression in the United States.42 It then should be of no

surprise that in 2002, there was an increase in farmer suicides

in Andhra Pradesh. Besides being the year Bt cotton was

introduced, this year was also one of low rainfall, low yields,

and low minimum prices.43

40 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 253-54.41 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 257.42 Dongre and Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region,” 4.43 Gruere and Sengupta, “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India,” 333.

18

When farmers and their families are asked, they give many

reasons for suicide, such as debt, environmental problems, poor

prices for farm produce, stress, family responsibilities,

government apathy, poor irrigation, increased cost of

cultivation, private money lenders, use of chemical fertilizers

and repeated crop failure.44 None, however, mention systemic

causes. Solutions through government policies should take into

account what the farmers perceive to be the causes, as well as

the root problems caused through the legacy of colonialism,

industrialization, and neoliberalism. One solution which has

been suggested is a monitoring and support system for vulnerable

farmers, including counselling services. For example, in

recognizing the correlation between suicide and drought, an

attempt to reduce the impacts of a drought year and the incidence

of farmer suicides can be made. Social workers, psychologists,

44 Dongre and Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region,” 2.

19

psychiatrists and other supportive measures could be mobilized to

a region if a drought is predicted, especially if there are many

small scale, lower caste farmers from smaller families in the

area.45

As well, village-level transparent systems for the

disbursement of relief packages should be created. Although the

government has distributed some relief packages to affected

families, these did not have any immediate positive effects on

suicide behaviours, as farmers’ concerns were not taken into

account when deciding what they should look like.46 In addition,

these packages generally went to middle or large scale farmers,

not those actually in need. Moreover, some states only offered

financial relief packages to the families of deceased farmers who

could not manage payments on bank loans, leading to an increase

in farmer suicides so their families could benefit. 47 45 Dongre and Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region,” 4.46 Dongre and Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region,” 2.47 Dongre and Deshmukh, “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region,” 4.

20

In addition, the government should ensure access to

institutional finance and crop insurance to all farmers so that

they can avoid high interest rates from private money lenders.

The constant and repeated land degradation since the Green

Revolution, due to the over-use of pesticides and chemical

fertilizers is also slowly leading to a loss of land

productivity, increasing input costs even more. Therefore,

organic farming, which ironically was why Bt cotton was created,

needs to be made a priority in India, particularly in light of

studies in China which have shown that chronic pesticide use has

also been associated with suicidal tendencies.48

Farmer suicides, especially in a neoliberal world, are not a

unique problem to India. Although Indian farmers are highly

indebted, especially since the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002,

this is not the root cause. They are actually an indicator of

48 Mohanty, “‘We are Like the Living Dead,’” 258.

21

deeper seeded systemic problems in rural India, such as a loss of

competitiveness and the breakdown of rural institutions.

Colonialism, industrialization, development, neoliberalism, and

the accompanying individualization, together with the Indian

notion of caste has created a complex socio-economic environment

in which all odds seem to be against the small, lower caste

Indian farmer. However, the crop failure and debt which many

farmers cite as their reasons for depression and suicide, can be

prevented or at least have the impact lessened. If the

government made options available to compensate farmers losses

through crop insurance, counselling, access to institutional

finance, and relief packages, Indian farmers would not feel they

had no other option but to commit suicide. India does not need

any more technical solutions for what is a socio-economic

problem.

22

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Behind the Label: India’s Genetically Modified Cotton.” Directedby Sebastiano Tecchnio. 2011. Films Media Group.

http://digital.films.com.cyber.usask.ca/PortalViewVideo.aspx?xtid=53319.

“Cotton suicides: The great unravelling.” The Economist, January 18, 2007. Accessed March 15, 2015. http://www.economist.com/node/8548670.

Dongre, Amol R. and Pradeep R. Deshmukh. “Farmers’ Suicides in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra India: a qualitative exploration of their causes.” Journal of Injury and Violence Research 4 (2012): 2-6.

Gruere, Guillaume and Debdatta Sengupta. “Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: An Evidence-based Assessment.” The Journal of Development Studies 47 (2011): 316-337.

Jafri, Afsar H. and Vandana Shiva. “Failure of GMO’s in India.” Synthesis/Regeneration 33 (2003).

Michael Kirkpatrick. “Lecture 12: Direct British Rule in India.” Class Lecture, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. October 14, 2015.

Mittal, Anuradha. “Harvest of Suicides: How Global Trade Rules Are Driving Indian Farmers to Despair.” Earth Island Journal 23 (2008): 55-57.

Mohanty, B.B. “‘We are Like the Living Dead’: Farmer Suicides in Maharashtra, Western India.” The Journal of Peasant Studies 32 (2005): 243-276.

Moore Lappe, Frances, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosset, and Luis Esparza. World Hunger: 12 Myths. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 1998.

Shiva, Vandana. The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. New Jersey: Zed Books Ltd., 1991.

Specter, Michael. “Seeds of Doubt: An activist’s controversial crusade against genetically modified crops.” The New Yorker,

23

August 25, 2014. Accessed March 16, 2015.http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt.