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.
Top Related