Suicides tell no tale

This is not a matter of economics, but of people and their responses to their situations

Mohan Guruswamy, Uma Natarajan and Shagun Khare Delhi

While we cannot deny the grim reality of the countryside, we also cannot use suicides as a measure for this. Suicide is not a matter of economics, but of how people respond to a social or economic adversity.

A lot has been made of farmer suicides in recent times. The media is replete with ideas and notions that heavily bank upon emotional appeal and partisan sentiments. Suicides have come to be indicators of economic distress. The logic seems to be that more the suicides, the worse the financial state, and more apathetic the government. But in all this, everyone seems to have forgotten the psychological truism that suicide is more a consequence of genetic traits than the environment.

The National Mental Health Association of the USA states that "No matter the race or age of the person; how rich or poor they are, it is true that most people who commit suicide have a mental or emotional disorder". Both suicide and depression, the leading cause for suicide, are caused by decreased serotonin in the brain. The suicidal tendency in a person is dictated by the DNA, and only triggered by the economic condition in those already predisposed to suicide. For instance, in the same regions of Andhra Pradesh and Vidharba where farmer suicides are reported, there exist farmers who are in the same or worse situations than the farmers who took their lives. All did not resort to suicide.

There is a suicide baseline which exists in good times or bad. This is well supported by the data released by World Health Organisation in 2004: while the suicide rate in India, a predominantly agrarian economy, was 10.7 per 100,000; those of industrialised, rich countries were generally higher; Finland was 22.5, USA 10.7, UK 7.5, Germany 13.5 and Australia 12.5.

Even inspecting the profiles of suicide victims by profession this fact is confirmed. In 2001, of those who committed suicide, farmers accounted for 15.13  per cent while those in the secure service industry (including the government and public sector undertakings) formed 12.67  per cent of the recorded cases.

Suicide-rates indicate that the poorer states such as Bihar have a suicide rate of 0.7 and Uttar Pradesh 2.2. These are much lesser than the richer states of Tamil Nadu (19.1), West Bengal (16.6) and Gujarat (9.0).

Quoting Sharad Joshi: “The farmers were driven to suicide, first in trickles and then in waves, as suicide became a thinkable proposition” (“Malady of Yavatmal-Cotton turns a killer”, Business Line, August 4, 2004). This in psychological parlance is known as “suicide contagion”. This suggestion of a mass mentality further establishes the psychological basis of suicide which needn't necessarily be linked with a worsening living condition.

While we cannot deny the grim reality of the countryside, we also cannot use suicides as a measure for this. Suicide is not a matter of economics, but of how people respond to a social or economic adversity. Politicians, however, tend to play on the emotional quotient of the situation. This comes through as a gimmick for winning votes. The actual issue is the economic plight of the farmer and the flagging agricultural sector, which should be the centre of concern.

Agriculture is, undeniably, in a crisis. The Indian economy has entered the above eight per cent growth trajectory in the past year. Growth implies a higher demand for food, which must be met with an increase in food production. Though Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hoped for a four  per cent growthof agriculture, it clocked a growth of only 2.3  per cent last year. This has serious food security implications for the country.

The share of agriculture in GDP has fallen from 55.4 per cent in 1950-51 to 22.8 per cent in 2004-05, while about 58 per cent of the work force is still engaged in this sector. Farmers also face increasing burden on land (267 people per square km in 1991 to 324 people in 2001). While the decline of agriculture as a percentage of GDP is considered a sign of development, it also signifies lopsided development when the number of people employed in agriculture keeps rising. This implies falling individual income of the farm sector in relative terms.

The main proportion of the government's outlay on agriculture goes towards subsidies which contribute very little to growth today. They benefit the rich farmers the most, while the marginal ones are living on the fringe. These need to be done away with to arrive at a long-term solution.

There is also need to promote watershed management and massively increase the acreage under irrigation; presently; only about 40 per cent of total agricultural land is irrigated. A study by CZ Guilmoto in the Economic and Political Weekly, stated that if 10 hectares of land are irrigated, employment on that tract increases from eight to 24 persons. Consider the implications this can have. If we were to irrigate the total cultivable area, we would generate 179 million new jobs or employment for 44.5 per cent of our workforce.

The state of farmers is worsened by an inefficient procurement and pricing system. The government keeps food prices artificially low by imports, administrative means and subsidy, never allowing the farmer his rightful income. While a kilogramme of wheat retails for Rs13 in India, the same does for Rs 30 in the USA, Rs 19 in Egypt, Rs 20 in Malaysia and Rs 34 in Thailand. Even when the retail prices of agricultural commodities shoot up, as is the case of perishables these days, the farmer's profit margin does not.

While tomatoes are sold for Rs 45/kg in our shops, the farmer only gets a little more than Rs 11. Unless agriculture is made a more profitable business, indebtedness of the farmer shall not ebb.

It must also be noted that as per the 10th plan outlay of the Planning Commission, Andhra Pradesh gets only six per cent of the total assistance to agriculture. This is despite the fact that it has around nine per cent of the cultivable area of the country. Other such weaknesses in the system too must be done away with. How many of us know that Maharashtra has around 12 per cent of the total cultivable area of the country and gets only around eight per cent of the loans disbursed by the banks?

All these lacunae need to be effectively dealt with. The problems with the system are deep-rooted, and need to be resolved accordingly. In stead of short term sops, the government needs to resort to long-term measures. Our leaders must also realise that suicide is a matter of psychology, and not of economics no matter how tempting it may be to exaggerate an issue.

The true indicators of the economic conditions are objective measures such as the sectoral share in GDP, availability of cheap credit, increase in area under irrigation etc and not farmer suicides. That there is a crisis looming over the agricultural sector is denied by none. But instead of playing on emotions, we must rely on facts. If the country hopes to join the league of developed nations we cannot bypass the majority of the population. Agriculture must be made an equal contributor to growth, and not the impediment.

The authors are with the Centre for Policy Alternatives, Delhi