Suicide epidemic; loan waivers alone won’t do

Kuljit Bains

When the state government is ruining its already impossible financial situation to pay for a loan waiver scheme, it may seem unfair to say it does not care for farmers committing suicide. But when each day of an entire week sees reports of at least one farmer/farm labourer committing suicide, something is definitely amiss. It has been said earlier, but it merits reiteration, that debt waiver has no bearing on suicides, and the latter has to be treated as a separate challenge altogether.

At the same time, loans given to farmers and their inability to pay those back, is for sure the most prominent reason behind them finding escape in death. While farmers have often been blamed for taking loans, and spending, beyond their means, that may be a convenient excuse for what in reality is an extremely vitiated farm credit environment. Under the agro-economy of the state today, it is a given that every small farmer will be distressed unless he has an alternative source of income. Here steps in a banker who has been given a target for dispensing loans, and bewitches a needy farmer with all kinds of options and ready cash.

It must be noted, a farmer knows little about finances. As a recent case highlighted by The Tribune of a farmer harassed by Bathinda Central Cooperative Bank for recovery revealed, he had been given a loan to set up a shop. It is obvious the farmer was not aware of the implications, even if he may have willingly signed the documents.

The loan waiver announcement by the government has only made the situation worse. Encouraged by the expectation, a vast majority of the poor farmers stopped paying their instalments; some may have even spent money irresponsibly. Farmers are now being pursued by banks for recovery, when for years the same cooperative banks have been ignoring unpaid dues of hugely rich and influential people such as Akali leader Dyal Singh Kolianwali. If there are any leaders of the ruling Congress now getting similar favourable treatment, it may not be known till the end of this government’s tenure.

The situation is somewhat akin to a drug addict. Many farmers have been drawn into a circumstance they could not foresee, and now feel abandoned by the very system that peddled them the loans. The banking system, and populist governments, have broken their own rules of due diligence before extending loans, and thereafter failed to pursue the cases with regular periodic reminders. It may well be said that farmers have been virtually incited to default.

Coming back to suicides, it is plain that the government repeating ad nauseam that it has waived loans of up to Rs 2 lakh is not helping. A plan specific to suicides has to be laid out, and it may not necessarily mean much expense. Inasmuch as farmer suicides are the result of a financial situation, they are also a factor of mental condition, of hope and despair. Not every poor person in distress ends his life, but there is a distinctly higher proportion of farmers taking to this recourse as compared to others in society. The phenomenon of one suicide triggering another may also not be ruled out. The cycle needs to be broken, and immediately.

For one, the government may launch a programme on the lines of the “Drug Abuse Prevention Officer”, getting specially trained people to take under their wing distressed farmers in their village. Such “suicide prevention officers” — as they may be called — will need a back-up from revenue officials, or specifically constituted panels at the district and block levels, that may work out “reconciliation” models specific to each farmer. The panels may also decide who is genuinely distressed and who a wilful defaulter. And banks and revenue officials may also approach farmers through these neutral arbiters.

What brings urgency to the matter is that when people are dying every day, it is obviously not a financial issue alone. It is an epidemic.