Friday July 19, 2019
Home Opinion 3,00,000 farm...

3,00,000 farmer suicides: Making sense of the impersonal stats of a suicidal Indian farmer

1
//

Drought_4C--621x414

By Ishan Kukreti

The Indian farmer is in limelight again, and like always, for all the unhappy reasons.

A farmer died during the rally of Aam Aadmi Party at Jantar Mantar. The Land Acquisition Bill is being widely debated and Rahul Gandhi has lent his unequivocal support for the cause of the farmers. Recently, O.P. Dhankar, Haryana Agriculture Minister, called farmers who commit suicide, ‘criminals’ and ‘cowards.’ All this has focused the national attention on the tiller, once more.

But amidst the cacophony of prime time debates, angry questions, decreasing subsidies and unseasonal rains, the Indian farmer remains at the same place, on the margin and highly suicidal. 

What’s the big deal?

Since independence around 3,00,000 farmers have committed suicide. The highest number of farmer suicides were recorded in 2004, when 18,241 farmers committed suicide, according to National Crime Records Bureau. Division tells that this means, on ever day of 2004, around 50 farmers committed suicide in India. The jet black irony of the situation is that the year of BJP’s ‘India Shinning’ was the darkest for Indian farmers.

Agriculture as an economic activity is fast becoming an option not very viable. The input costs are rising at a rate which the output price is not able to match. Apart from this a long list of problems like decreasing water table, decline in soil fertility due to using fertilizers and chemicals, emergence of pests resistant to chemicals, are killing agriculture in India, along with the agriculturist.

Minimum Support Price Scheme

To secure the position of the farmers, the government started its Minimum Support Scheme in 1966-67. It is the minimum amount at which the government buys grains from the farmers. The scheme provides a guarantee of crop sale to farmers, but as the name suggests, it is a bare minimum amount and is mostly inadequate.

“Government gives Rs. 1,450 for a quintal of wheat, but it doesn’t help us. The MSP is worse than charity, it is given just as a formality. We require a minimum of at least Rs. 2,000 per quintal to make things better,”  says a highly disgruntled Karam Singh Pajja who is a farmer in Bajpur, Uttrakhand, and has ‘sold’ a crop of sugarcane worth Rs.82,000 to Bajpur Sugar Mill over a month ago but hasn’t received the money yet.

It is true that MSP has been increased by the government over the years. But the hike, when viewed keeping in mind the reduced financial assistance of government in activities like irrigation, health and related services, employment schemes etc, turns out to be a mere joke.

Moreover, even the guaranteed MSP comes with a there’s-a-rub condition. The government doesn’t purchase wheat crop ( one of the most grown crop) with moisture content over 12%. But during the time of harvest, the crop inevitably has moisture content higher than that. To bring it down to 12%, the yield has to be dried in the sun, this also means the requirement of a storage facility and a possibility of loss because of rodents and pests.

Arahati and the hoarding

When the farmer can’t sell the produce to FCI ( Food Corporation of India) due to the glitch of moisture content or if he requires a better price, he then turns to the ‘Arhati’ the middle man who buys the produce from him and sells it in the mandi to retailers.

“The farmer has to recover his money as soon as possible because he has to repay the loans. Arahati buys the produce for a lower price, exploiting the farmers and then makes profit by selling it at a higher rate to retailers and government officials,” says Baljit Singh Randhawa, treasurer of the Kisan Union, Uttrakhand.

For a person who thrives on the simple profit and loss principle of reducing cost price and increasing selling price, it is no surprise that the Arhati takes advantage of the farmers’ condition.

“It is his business and he does everything to make it profitable. What’s it to him if a farmer lives or dies? or whether our kids go to schools or not?” says Ramesh Khartri, who owns farms in Rajasthan.

Postscript    

The apathy of government, dishonesty of officials and the greed of Arhati, all are the combined burden which the sisyphus of an Indian farmer sloughs under, generation after generation.

Karam Singh’s words in this context, help put things in clear perspective. He says, “Kisan is the only person in Hindustan who is not allowed to fix the price for his goods. The government or the private trader does it for him. He cannot say that I want this much amount for my crop. He too has to send his kids to school, get his daughters married.”

 

  • A very succinct, point by point analysis of the farmers plight in india. Hope it reaches the powers that be. We need more journalists like you, who bring such pressing issues to the table.

Next Story

Research: Having Diverse Natural Areas Near Agriculture Helps Farmers Financially During Calamities

"New global and local policy should specifically target conserving and enhancing biodiversity"

0
farmers, nature
University of British Columbia ecologist Diane Srivastava, with a damselfly, an insect often used as an indicator species for estimating biodiversity and assessing ecosystem health. (T. Zulkoskey). VOA

Farmers reap surprising benefits from having areas that are biodiverse  with many plant and animal species nearby, according to new research. A study finds that having diverse natural areas near agriculture helps farmers financially during droughts, and the more diverse the areas are, the better. Policies that preserve biodiversity near farms may ease economic pressure in places with severe droughts, the authors say.

“If you plant the same sort of crops next to a natural area that is very high in biodiversity versus one that’s very low in biodiversity, [the positive effect] spills over into the agricultural products,” said Frederik Noack, a professor of food and resource economics at the University of British Columbia who led the study.

Some of that spillover can be tied to the increased diversity of insects in places that host many different species of plants, experts say. Pollinators that help plants reproduce, like bees and moths, and spiders that prey on agricultural pests like aphids and beetles are especially important.

Noack hoped to learn if having biodiverse areas close to farms could help crops be more resistant to drought  and if that impact would be big enough to be seen in farmers’ incomes.

farmers, diversity, agriculture
Farmers reap surprising benefits from having areas that are biodiverse with many plant and animal species nearby, according to new research. Wikimedia Commons

Big data from small farms

The researchers used data from 7,556 households in 304 villages in Asia, Africa and Latin America, where farmers derive their incomes from traditional agriculture as well as forest products like lumber and firewood.

Noack and his research team looked for a connection between the level of natural biodiversity  in this case, the number of plant species in the area  and how strongly drought affected the incomes of local farmers.

The researchers had expected that greater local biodiversity would benefit farmers, and it did. Farmers in areas with half the biodiversity lost twice as much income when droughts hit during the growing season.

Noack said that initially they thought the effect was just correlated with crop diversity. “Maybe you plant more different crops in areas with higher natural biodiversity because maybe there are just more crops available in those areas and that’s actually what’s driving the effect.”

But that’s not what they found. Even when they accounted for the effect of greater crop diversity, the farmers’ incomes seemed to be stabilized just by being close to diverse natural areas that can host many types of pollinators.

farmers, agriculture, diverse
“If you plant the same sort of crops next to a natural area that is very high in biodiversity versus one that’s very low in biodiversity, [the positive effect] spills over into the agricultural products,” said Frederik Noack. Pixabay
Having access to forests was also an income stabilizer. Because forests are the result of many years of growth rather than just a single season, income from forest products is less susceptible to drought and can offset agricultural losses, the researchers found.

ALSO READ: Government to Launch Solar Scheme for Farmers to Ensure Rs. 1 Lakh Income

Encouraging conservation

Bruno Basso, an ecosystems scientist at Michigan State University who was not involved in the research, commented in an email that the researchers had been able to show that “biodiversity and forest conservation play a critical role in adapting and mitigating the negative effects of increased climate variability.” Noack hopes that this study can become part of the larger debate about conservation of natural areas.

“Should we just have protected area far away in areas that we don’t use or shall we try to integrate that into normal land use?” said Noack. “This study actually says maybe we should at least have some level of biodiversity conservation in the agricultural landscape because of this positive spillover.” Basso agreed. “New global and local policy should specifically target conserving and enhancing biodiversity,” he said. (VOA)