Losing out on agriculture

M Rajivlochan

Analyses of agrarian troubles in India are full of tragedy. The tragedy lies in two parts. In the first part is the sad story of a farmer who was distressed enough to commit suicide. In the second part is the outrageous behaviour of many bystanders who, in the name of being well-wishers of farmers, use the funeral fires not just to cook their own meals but to run an entire restaurant on it as it were. The business is based on simplistic assertions, devoid of any rigorous thinking. It begins something like this: a person commits suicide; he is a farmer; ergo this is a case of a 'farmer's suicide'. It matters not that little effort is made to identify what the word 'farmer' would denote. Would it be a farm labourer? A share-cropper? A tenant farmer? A landowner? One with less than enough land for sustenance? One with just enough land for sustenance? One with significant holdings? Each category would have different concerns, requirements and much else. Never mind the significant distinctions between them; it is far simpler to use a portmanteau concept like ‘farmer’ because it catches public attention so. 

Having shoved everyone into a single scientifically unsustainable category begins an insistent search for reasons.

 The search for reasons that cause such intense distress to the farmer varies according to the time and personal tastes. A perpetual favourite is ‘loans’. That puts a certain entity called 'the bank' in the firing line. The solution seekers then demand that bank loans be written off or extended forever or their interest rates be brought down by some legislation. It matters little that most banks seldom advance loans that will cause undue distress to the farmer and seldom do banks put intense pressure on farmers to return the loans. It matters even less that most loans taken by farmers are either from relatives, friends, other farmers or local businessmen. It is almost of no consequence to the analyst that it is the inability to return these loans whose payback is rooted in social norms — that cause the greatest amount of distress. The serious loss of face within the community is often unbearable. Moreover, few outsiders realise that farming in India is one of the most competitive of businesses, other farmers (often relatives) being the greatest competition who do not hesitate to use any means fair or foul to cut down someone.

Causes that have been favoured in the past include Bt Cotton and other genetically modified crops. The MNCs marketing these crops and the chemicals needed for them have often come under fire as well, paying no heed to the rather well-known detail that the same seeds and chemicals have resulted in considerable benefit to most of their users. 

Much used by farm unions and opposition politicians is the idea that the government is offering an ‘un-remunerative Minimum Support Price’. Once again, if only to keep up the rhythm with previously listed causes, it matters little that some of the most accomplished farm economists in the country calculate the MSP after taking into account all relevant details. Often economists are wrong, but are they wrong in the present instance too? Doesn’t seem so. No one seems to be challenging their calculations in the pages of professional journals. In the past the rare challenger shut up once a new government came to power and persisted with the old ways of calculating the MSP. One can’t but wonder whether there was a political motive to those accusing the MSP to be ‘un-remunerative’. As it is most of the criticism of the MSP is done by way of public posturing. 

Any realistic and meaningful understanding of the farmers' condition can only happen when either one has some first-hand knowledge of farming in India or conducts an in-depth study. It was interesting to note that some years ago Parkash Singh Badal, himself a farmer of long standing, when asked by the Central Government about farmers' suicide in Punjab, had gone on record to state that none such existed. That, in the face of a barrage of reporting in the media about “farmers' suicide”.

The veracity of such a claim can only be tested through in-depth studies. To be sure, studies have been many -- conducted by the media, lawyers, farm activists and academics. On close examination we discovere that most stop digging for causes once they have reached their current favourite. One such study, ordered by the honourable High Court, actually had the cheek to declare that its objective was to find how loans by banks were resulting in farmers’ suicide. Once a research objective is framed thus it is not very difficult to hang the rest of the story using this one peg. 

The National Sample Survey Organisation has often examined the condition of farmers of India. Its surveys are some of the most reliable for getting a view of the whole. It has often pointed out that farming in India has for long been an un-remunerative exercise for the small and medium farmer. Modern-day farming techniques are simply beyond their ken. Together these constitute some 85 per cent of the total farmers in India. Small farmers actually lose money on whatever little they produce. They survive on some other income. 

So the question: why do they persist with farming? The answer, well-known to anyone versed with rural Punjab, is that they get out of farming as soon as a good opportunity comes their way. Or else, they begin to lease out their land. Some even lease in land from others. The problem is, as the late Professor G S Bhalla pointed out in his book on agriculture in India (published by the NBT), that there simply are too few alternative sources of employment available in India. By his calculations, at the rate that new employment was being generated we would have to wait till the year 2050 for the present generation of small and medium farmers to get non-farm based employment. Add to that the fact that India provides virtually no food security or health security to the rural poor and you know why the farmer persists with cultivating that unsustainable patch of land: at least it provides a small amount of food through the year for the family.

There is a constructive way out. As a first step, the government needs to work for providing food security and health security.  At present the government thinks its task is done by creating schemes and spending money on them without bothering about the actual implementation of anything. Minimally, that needs to change. Once that security is in place, at least it allows for the distressed farmer to find solutions to his other woes without being pushed over the brink.

Rajivlochan is the author of “Farmers’ Suicide: Facts and Possible Policy Interventions”