FARMER SUICIDES - Institute for Social and Economic Change all India study... · Farmer Suicides: An All India Study ” was carried out by Agro Economic Research Centre, Agriculture

FARMER SUICIDESAN ALL INDIA STUDY

Study Commissioned by Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare,

Government of India, New Delhi

A.V. MANJUNATHA K.B. RAMAPPA

July 2017

Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation CentreINSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGEBengaluru - 560 072

Agro-Economic Research Centre

Dr. A.V. Manjunatha, Principal Investigator

Dr. K.B. Ramappa, Co-Principal Investigator

Dr. Pesala Peter, Consultant Ms. D.T. Preethika, Research Associate

Ms. N.C. Mamatha, Research Associate

Mr. Keshav Murthy, Consultant

Mr. Bangarappa, Research Assistant

Mrs. K.M. Prema Kumari, Research Associate

Dr. Vijaya Sarathy, Research Associate

Mr. Narasimha Murthy, Research Assistant

Contact:

Dr. A.V. Manjunatha, Ph.D. in Agricultural Economics (Justus Liebig University, Germany)

Assistant ProfessorAgricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC)Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru - 560 072Ph: +91-80-23397689 (O), +91 9448402848 (Mobile)Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Draft Report submitted in June 2017

Final Report submitted in July 2017

Citation: A.V. Manjunatha and K.B. Ramappa (2017), Farmer Suicides : An All India Study, Agriculture Development and Rural Transformation Centre Report, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Karnataka

Design by: dataworx, Bengaluru; website: www.dataworx.co.in

Prepared by

Research Team

July 2017

Agro-Economic Research Centre

Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre

INST ITUTE FOR SOC IAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGEBengaluru - 560 072

Report Submitted to Agro-Economic Research Division, Directorate of Economics & Statistics,

Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare,

Government of India, New Delhi

FARMER SUICIDESAN ALL INDIA STUDY

Study Commissioned by

Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi

A.V. MANJUNATHA K.B. RAMAPPA

ii

Farmer Suicides : An All India Study

The study entitled “Farmer Suicides: An All India Study” was carried out by Agro

Economic Research Centre, Agriculture Development and Rural Transformation

Centre of the Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru in association

with nine Agro-Economic Research Centers covering 13 states. The study was

conducted on behest of the Agro-Economic Research Division, Directorate of

Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New

Delhi. We would like to extend sincere thanks to all concerned officials of the

Ministry for their help and cooperation. We profusely thank Shri.P.C.Bodh,

Advisor, Agro-Economic Research Division, Directorate of Economics &

Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare,

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, for

encouragement and support throughout the study. Special thanks to Ms.Yogitha

Swaroop, Additional Economic Advisor and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Asst. Director of

the AER Division for their cooperation. We also thank Prof. Vasant Gandhi, Centre

for Management in Agriculture, IIM, Ahmedabad, for his valuable suggestions.

We are grateful to the Director of ISEC, Prof. M.G. Chandrakanth, Former

Director of ISEC, Prof. R.S. Deshpande and Senior Consultant of ADRTC, ISEC,

Dr. P. Thippaiah for their encouragement and support. We have received strong

support from the concerned officials of Department of Agriculture and other

concerned departments of different states. We highly appreciate their support

and cooperation.

We express our thanks to AERCs who were involved in the study, namely, GIPE,

Pune, Maharashtra; Waltair, Andhra Pradesh; University of Madras, Tamil Nadu;

JNKVV, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh; PAU, Ludhiana, Punjab; University of Delhi; S.P.

University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat; University of Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh

and Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal.

Special thanks to our colleagues in the ADRTC, Dr. I. Maruthi and Prof. Parmod

Kumar for their constant support. We greatly thank the support rendered

by the research team: Dr. Pesala Peter, Ms. D. T. Preethika, Ms. N.C. Mamatha,

Mr.Keshav Murthy, Dr. Vijaya Sarathy, Mr. Bangarappa, Ms. K.M.Prema Kumari

and Sri. Narasimha Murthy. The secretarial assistance by Mr. N. Boopathi and

Mr.Muthuraja is thankfully acknowledged.

A.V. Manjunatha,

Principal Investigator

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

iii


i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi - xix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 - 10

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Review of literature 3

1.3 Objectives 7

1.4 Data and Methodology 8

1.5 Structure of the report 10

CHAPTER 2 FARMER SUICIDES SCENARIO IN INDIA 12 - 21

2.1 Intensity of farmer suicides in India 12

2.2 Government initiatives to address agrarian distress and suicides 14

CHAPTER 3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND CROPPING PATTERN 23 - 43

3.1 Type of respondents 23

3.2 Details of AAY, BPL and APL cards possessed by victim households 24

3.3 Socioeconomic characteristics of victims 24

3.4 Characteristics of operational holdings 28

3.5 Sources of Irrigation 30

3.6 Cropping pattern and net returns 31

3.7 Sources of income and expenditure 35

3.8 Details of credit 37

CHAPTER 4 CAUSES AND IMPACT OF FARMER SUICIDES 44 - 65

4.1 Symptoms of suicides noticed by the victim households 44

4.2 Causes of farmer suicides 46

4.3 Impact of suicides on victim households 58

4.4 Suggestions to prevent farmer suicides by victim households 60

CHAPTER 5 FINDINGS AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS 67 - 78

5.1 Findings 67

5.2 Policy Suggestions 73

REFERENCES 79 - 82

ANNEXURE 83-84

CONTENTS

iv


Table No. Particulars Page No.

1.1 Suicides and indebtedness in farming 2

1.2 Sample size 9

2.1 Details of farmer suicides in sample states 13

2.2 Month-wise farmer suicides in sample states during 2015-16 15

2.3 State-wise details of compensation paid to victim households during 2015-16 19

3.1 State-wise details on the type of respondents 23

3.2 State-wise details of AAY, BPL and APL cards possessed by victim households 24

3.3 Gender, social status and age of victims 25

3.4 Educational status of victims 26

3.5 Marital status of the victims 27

3.6 Method and place of suicides 28

3.7 Details of operational holdings of victim households 29

3.8 Source-wise distribution of irrigated area 30

3.9 Crops cultivated and net returns realized by victim households 33

3.10 State-wise net profit from different crops 33

3.11 State-wise income and expenditure 36

3.12 Details of credit 37

3.13 Details of credit availed from institutional sources 43

4.1 Symptoms noticed by victim households prior to suicide 44

4.2 Social causes of farmer suicides 47-48

4.3 Farming related causes of farmer suicides 50-51

4.4 Indebtedness related causes of farmer suicides 54

4.5 Ranking of the social, farming and indebtedness related causes of suicides 55

4.6(a) State-wise top five causes of suicides by victim households during 2014-15 57

4.6(b) State-wise top five causes of suicides by victim households during 2015-16 58

4.7 Impact of farmer suicides on victim households 59

4.8 State-wise suggestions from victim households to prevent farmer suicides 62

LIST OF TABLES

v


Figure No. Particulars Page No.

1.1 Reasons for farmer suicides in India (NCRB, 2014) 1

1.2 Farmer suicides in India (NCRB, 2015) 3

2.1 Suicides reported in agriculture in India 12

2.2 Month-wise number of farmer suicides in sample states during 2015-16 14

3.1 Area operated by different category of victim households 29

3.2 Percentage of operated area by crop categories 31

3.3 State-wise costs and returns from crop cultivation 34

3.4 State-wise income and expenditure of victim households 35

3.5 Source-wise credit 38

3.6 State-wise institutional loans availed by victim households 39

3.7 State-wise non-institutional loans availed by victim households 40

3.8 State-wise quantum of credit availed by victim households 41

3.9 State-wise comparison of credit availed and outstanding 42

4.1 Per cent of victim HHs who answered ‘Yes’ to the symptoms of suicide 45

4.2 Per cent of victim HHs who answered that the victim was consuming food regularly and slept adequately 46

4.3 Social causes of farmer suicides 49

4.4 Farming related causes of farmer suicides 52

4.5 Indebtedness related causes of farmer suicides 53

4.6 Social, farming and indebtedness related causes for suicides for which more than ten per cent of the HHs answered “Yes” 56

4.7 Impact of farmer suicides on victim households 59

4.8 Overall suggestions from victim households 60

LIST OF FIGURES

vi


Background

Farmer suicides have become a major concern in India that has resulted in profound implications

on the quality life of farmers. The deterioration in farmers’ household status was clearly brought

out by the NSSO’s Situation Assessment Survey in 2003 and 2013. The United Nations Commission

on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) reported about one farmer committing suicide every 32

minutes between 1997 and 2005 in India. According to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB),

the tendency of farmers resorting to extreme measure of suicide was alarming in Maharashtra,

Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka during 2014. These five states together

accounting for 90 per cent of farmer suicides (5056), remained as hotspots of agrarian distress.

The unfortunate incidence of farmer suicides continued in the subsequent years. According to

NCRB data, number of farmers who committed suicide in 2015 went up by 42 per cent as compared

to 2014. Fifteen farmers committed suicide every day in the country during 2014 and this went

up to 21 in 2015. Five states remained hot spots in both years despite the efforts by the Central

and State Governments. Among these states, reduction in farmer suicides was observed only in

Chhattisgarh. It is important to note that half of the farmer suicides reported in 2014 and 2015

reported during July to November.

Many studies have addressed the reasons for suicides from various angles. A detailed perusal of

the literature in India suggests multiple causes for building the agrarian distress. This may be due

to the squeezing of income sources under the pressure of increasing cost of cultivation and higher

cash needs for the households. This is further aggravated by the climatic factors, low productivity

and market failures both in factor and product markets. But among these, the farm indebtedness

was considered as the major triggering factor by analysts. Even though indebtedness is the major

reason for farmer suicides, it originates due to inadequacy and continuous shrinking of the income

flow. The scenario of indebtedness vis-a-vis income generation in agriculture in the country also

supports this hypothesis. The per cent of indebted farm households to total farm households

was 57 per cent, 46 per cent and 37 per cent in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh,

respectively. At all India level, prominent causes recognized for farmer suicides were namely,

bankruptcy or indebtedness (20.6%), family problems (20.1%), farming related issues (17.2%),

illness (13.2%) and drug abuse/ alcoholic addiction (4.4%).

The Situation Assessment Surveys of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO, 2013) has

reconfirmed the worsening situation observed in 2003 by NSSO 59th round, of farm households

which indicated that 52 per cent of the farm households in India are indebted. Repeated failure

of crops lead to loss of income to the extent that the farmers could hardly earn to meet their

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii


livelihood expenses. Such circumstances compel the farmers to borrow from illegal money

lenders after exhausting all the institutional sources of borrowing and inability of repayment

mounts heavily. Over a period of time, ultimately, they encounter a debt-trap situation wherein

committing suicide turns out to be the only way to escape the mental agony.

Objectives

In order to avert agrarian distress and farmer suicides, the Government of India launched several

programmes. The prominent among them were Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation Package (PMRP)

launched in September, 2006 in 31 suicide prone districts covering Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra,

Karnataka, and Kerala with a budget allocation of Rs.16,978 crores. The package was designed

to meet short and long term needs of the distressed farmers. The package attempted to help

farmers who were finding it hard to repay the loans. The package also created irrigation facilities,

supplied seeds and other inputs. In addition to these, an ex-gratia amount of Rs.50 lakhs was

provided for each district. The distressed farmers of 31 districts found relief to a significant

extent (Bhende and Thippaiah, 2010). Radhakrishna Committee report (2007) on indebtedness

pointed out that the government did not optimally utilize the fund under PMRP.

Some other notable programmes of the Central Government for improving the income of farmers

are Kisan Credit Cards (KCC), revival package for short term cooperative credit structure,

concessional interest schemes, interest subvention schemes, interest subvention against

negotiable warehouse receipt, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

(MGNREGA), National Agricultural Development Programme (NADP), National Mission on Micro

Irrigation (NMMI), National Horticulture Mission (NHM) and National Mission for Sustainable

Agriculture (NMSA). The recent prominent programmes aimed at addressing agrarian distress

are: Pradhana Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana, 2015 (PMKSY) and Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bima

Yojana (PMFBY), 2016. Despite all these measures, the agrarian distress culminating into suicides

remained a major challenge for the policy makers in the country. With this background, the study

addressed following specific objectives:

• To analyze the incidence and spread of farmer suicides in selected states and to map the

hotspots of suicides.

• To study the socioeconomic profile, cropping pattern and profitability in the victim’s

household.

• To study the causes leading to suicide.

• To recommend suitable policies to avert farmer suicides.

viii


Methodology

The study is based on the primary data obtained from the victim’s family members and secondary

data obtained from Department of Agriculture and related departments of respective states.

The study included Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Karnataka states

which are the major suicide prone states in the country and another eight states (AP, Kerala,

TN, UP, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, WB), where farmer suicides were noticed. Thus, a total of 13

states were included in the study covering 46 districts, 138 taluks, 388 villages and 528 victim

households.

Primary data was collected using multi-stage sampling technique considering number of suicides

per lakh hectare of net sown area. The highest number of victim households has been covered

in Karnataka (107), whereas the least was in Haryana (14). Fifty victim HHs each was covered

in major suicides prone states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana and Chhattisgarh.

In the remaining states the sample size covered was 30. Thus, a total of 528 victim HHs were

interviewed, which accounts to 6.63 per cent of total farmer suicides (7959) in thirteen states

during 2015-16. The districts with highest number of suicides in respective sample states were

selected for the study. Members of the victim’s HHs were contacted using the information obtained

from Government departments and published reports.

Primary data was collected from the victim’s family members through a structured questionnaire

designed for the study. The questionnaire covered basic data such as family details, land holding,

income and expenditure pattern and credit details. One of the main focus of the study was to

elucidate the causes leading to suicide. Hence the households were enquired about causes

related to social, farming and indebtedness. Data for understanding the post suicide situation of

family was also collected.

Findings

The findings are presented under the following headings:

Household characteristics, cropping pattern and income status

• Nearly 58 per cent and 8 per cent of the victim HHs possessed BPL and AAY cards,

respectively. Andhra Pradesh (93%) has the highest percentage of BPL and AAY cards

followed by Telangana and Karnataka (86% each), Tamil Nadu (80%) and Chhattisgarh (78%),

whereas the least was in Punjab (10%). Maharashtra having witnessed highest number of

farmer suicides, had only 62 per cent of victims with BPL or AAY cards.

• Victim farmers consisted of 94 per cent of male farmers and six per cent of female farmers.

The female victims were reported in Telangana (36%), Gujarat (10%), Tamil Nadu (7%), West

Bengal (7%), Chhattisgarh (4%), Karnataka (4%), Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh (2% each).

ix


• The highest percentage of victims belong to OBC (46%) followed by General (29%), SC (16%)

and ST (9%). The percentage of SC and ST victims was found to be higher in Chhattisgarh

(70%), West Bengal (50%), Uttar Pradesh (47%), Tamil Nadu (40%) and Maharashtra (32%),

whereas it was lower in Gujarat and Punjab (3% each).

• Seventy per cent of the victims were in the age group of 31 to 60 years, 17 per cent in

less than 30 years and 13 per cent in above 60 years. Victims in the age group of 31 to 60

years were fully involved in agriculture and are prone to agrarian distress. Special efforts

needed to counsel farmers of this age group to overcome distress situation. Relatively

higher number of farmer suicides in the age group of 31 to 60 years was reported in

AP (90%), Karnataka (83%), MP (82%), Haryana (79%), Punjab (73%), Chhattisgarh (70%),

Gujarat (70%), Maharashtra (62%), Telangana (60%) and West Bengal (60%).

• Nearly 56 per cent of the victims were educated upto matriculation, 33 per cent were

illiterates and 11 per cent were educated more than matriculation. The percentage of

illiterates was found to be highest in MP (62%) followed by AP (53%), UP (40%), Maharashtra

(40%), Karnataka (35%) and TN (33%).

• Most of the victim farmers (91%) were married and had two children on an average which

indicates the extent of dependence on the victim. The higher percentage of married

victims was found in AP (100%), MP (98%), Chhattisgarh (98%), TN (97%), Telangana (96%),

Karnataka (93.5%) and Maharashtra (92%) as compared to remaining sample states.

• The most common methods adopted for committing suicide included Poisonous/Plant

Protection Chemicals (PPCs) consumption (48%) and hanging (43%). Most of the victims

in Andhra Pradesh (77%), Punjab (73%), Madhya Pradesh (72%), Tamil Nadu (70%), Gujarat

(67%) and West Bengal (53%) resorted to suicide through poison consumption, whereas

victims resorted to hanging in Chhattisgarh (78%), Kerala (67%), UP (67%), Haryana (57%)

and Maharashtra (52%).

• Nearly 57 per cent of the victims committed suicide at their residence and 36 per cent in

farm. There were also instances where victims committed suicide in places like hotels/

lodges (7%).

• The average operational land holding of victim HHs was 3.4 acres, of which, 55 per cent

was irrigated with groundwater (70%) being the major source of irrigation. Groundwater

was the major source of irrigation in UP (100%), Haryana (100%), Kerala (97%), West Bengal

(91%), Telangana (91%), Gujarat (85%) and Maharashtra (80%). The highest land holding was

found in Haryana (18 acres) followed by 6.6 acres in Punjab, 6 acres in Gujarat, 4.1 acres

in AP and 4 acres in Maharashtra. Whereas the least operational land was found in West

Bengal (1.2 acres). It is to further note that victims in Kerala, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and

West Bengal had only irrigated land.

x


• Marginal and small victim farmers constituted 76 per cent to the total victim HHs followed

by Medium (16%) and Large (8%). The percentage of marginal and small victim farmers

was relatively higher in UP (97%), West Bengal (97%), Telangana (96%), Kerala (93%),

Karnataka (80%), Chhattisgarh (90%), AP (78%), TN (76%) and Maharashtra (76%). Whereas,

the percentage of medium and large victim farmers was relatively higher in Haryana (86%)

and MP (53%).

• Marginal and small farmers among the victims operated 56 per cent of the total operational

land followed by Medium (27%) and Large (17%). Nearly 90 per cent of the land was

operated by marginal and small victim HHs in Telangana followed by 86 per cent in UP

and West Bengal, Maharashtra (82%) and MP (82%). Conversely, medium and large victim

HHs operated relatively higher area in Haryana (99%), Punjab (80%) and Gujarat (77%).

The distribution of land across categories clearly indicates inequity in distribution of land.

The extent of inequity was relatively higher in Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka,

Chhattisgarh and AP.

• The annual average net income realized per HHs was Rs.73,142, of which 72 per cent was

derived from agriculture and allied activities. The average annual expenditure incurred

was Rs.59,868, of which, 50 per cent spent on food and remaining on non-food items.

Overall, Rs.13,274 was the surplus amount realized after accounting for expenditure

which is just above poverty line income. The deficit was seen in Gujarat (Rs.78,823),

Maharashtra (Rs.63,787), Telangana (Rs.2,426) and West Bengal (Rs.2,466). The surplus

was relatively higher in Haryana (Rs.3,36,500) and Kerala (Rs.2,06,705). It is to note that

victim households in Maharashtra incurred loss of Rs.11,526 from agriculture and allied

activities, which are reflected in highest number of suicides during 2015-16.

• The net income of victim HHs depended on the cropping pattern. Cereals and cash crops

are the major crops grown in 57 per cent and 22 per cent of the gross cropped area,

respectively. The remaining crops include oilseeds (10%), pulses (5%), fodder crops (2%),

fruits (2%) and vegetables (1%). Among crops, the highest area was reported in Paddy (30%)

followed by Wheat (18%) and Cotton (16%).

• Among the various crops grown, the highest net returns per acre was realized from

cultivation of pepper (Rs.75,000), followed by ginger (Rs.71,284), fruits (Rs.70,334),

groundnut (Rs.44,321), and mulberry (Rs.38,227). The highest expenditure on cultivation

was incurred on pepper (Rs.1,59,375), followed by coffee (Rs.83,636), and ginger

(Rs.77,246). Relatively lower income per acre was registered from blackgram (Rs.12,327),

sugar cane (Rs.11,185), greengram (Rs.6,332), maize (Rs.6,197), coffee (Rs.5,060), redgram

(Rs.2,649), and jowar (Rs.431). It is quite significant to note that loss was incurred from

the cultivation of tobacco (Rs12,016/acre), ragi (Rs.741/acre), soyabean (Rs.301/acre)

and bajra (Rs.251/acre).

xi


• At aggregate level, the highest net return per acre was derived from cultivation of fruits

and vegetables (Rs.1,00,172/acre), followed by oil seeds (Rs.71,392/acre). Loss was

incurred from the cultivation of oil seeds in Maharashtra (Rs.3,536/acre). Similarly loss

was also observed in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables in Karnataka (Rs.76,343/acre)

and Telangana (Rs.5,750/acre). At the time of survey, the victim HHs of Karnataka had not

realised yield from fruit crops and hence loss was reflected under fruits and vegetable

group.

• Credit was availed by the entire victim HHs and a majority of them borrowed from multiple

sources with the average borrowing being Rs.1.55 lakh and Rs.1.70 lakh from institutional

and non-institutional sources, respectively. Nearly 8 per cent of the institutional borrowing

and 39 per cent of the non-institutional borrowing was used for non-farming purposes. Per

cent of amount outstanding to the total credit availed was highest in borrowings from

traders and commission agents (162%), followed by landlords (108%), relatives and friends

(Rs.94%), and commercial banks (85%). The overall outstanding amount was to the extent

of 86 per cent of the total credit.

• Symptoms observed by family members before suicide indicated that 19 per cent of the

victims were not mingling, staying aloof from family members, 22 per cent were not

interacting with the community, 26 per cent were not friendly as usual with the neighbours,

27 per cent were not consuming food regularly and 30 per cent had inadequate sleep. These

symptoms were prominently visible in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, WB, TN and Punjab as

compared to other states.

Causes of farmer suicides

The decision to commit suicide by the victim cannot be attributed to a single reason. It was spur-

of-the-moment triggered action with respect to 70 to 80 per cent of victims. The final action of

committing suicide was a combination of several cumulative causes which can be grouped into

social, farming and debt-related.

Social Causes

• Drug/Alcoholic addiction (26%), Illness (18%), fall in Social reputation (17%), family

quarrel (16%), daughter’s marriage (11%) and extra-marital affair (8%) are the major social

causes opined by victim HHs across 13 sample states. Drug/Alcoholic addiction and Illness

was common major cause reported by victim HHs in all the sample states. Fall in social

reputation was reported as one of the main cause for suicide by all the sample states

except UP.

xii


• Gambling was reported by 33 per cent of victim HHs in Kerala, 27 per cent in TN, 18 per

cent in Chhattisgarh, 8 per cent in MP and 2 per cent in Telangana.

• Family quarrel was also reported by all states except TN. Disputes in partition of income

was reported by 4 per cent of the victim HHs in Maharashtra and 2 per cent in Karnataka.

• It is to note that dowry was reported as a cause for suicide in TN (10%), AP (3%), and

Gujarat (3%) Telangana (2%) and Maharashtra (2%). Daughter’s marriage was reported in all

states except Chhattisgarh, UP and Haryana. Only in Punjab (3%) victim HHs have reported

divorce as one of the reason for suicide.

• Social autopsy results revealed that the opinion of neighbours/relatives/ friends regarding

social causes are in-line with the opinions of victim HHs.

Farming related causes

• Expectation of non-institutional credit and failure of rain was reported as major farming

related cause by 37 per cent and 36 per cent of the victim HHs, respectively. This is

followed by non-realisation of higher output (35%), non-realisation of higher price (33%),

lack of access to expected institutional credit (33%) and lack of irrigation (32%).

• The failure of crop during the two successive years (2014-15 and 2015-16) in the sample

states was considered as a major setback, which was responsible for suicides. Lack of

access to expected credit (70%), non-realization of higher output and prices (68%) and

crop failure (60%) were the major reasons for suicides. The failure of crops due to attack

of pests and diseases was reported by all sample states. Lack of access to irrigation water

was reported by all states except MP, Chhattisgarh, UP and Punjab. The HHs of UP reported

crop failure due to pest and diseases (30%) and cyclones (30%) as two causes for suicides.

• Cyclone was reported as one of the cause by Kerala (56%), UP (30%), AP (3%) and Karnataka

(0.9%). Drought was common cause in all states except UP, Punjab and WB. Inability to sell

the output was mainly reported by the HHs of the Kerala (59%). Well failure was reported

by 40 per cent of victim HHs in Telangana.

• Non-realisation of higher output was one of the major causes in all states except UP and

MP. Similarly, the non-realisation of higher prices was also the major reason in all states

except Chhattisgarh and UP. Telangana (68% of sample HHs expected higher output and

60% expected higher price), West Bengal (60% of sample HHs expected higher output and

60% expected higher price), Tamil Nadu (50% expected high output and 80% expected

higher price) and Kerala (52% expected higher output and 81% expected higher price) are

the prominent states where expectation of higher output and price reported as a major

farming related cause of farmer suicides.

xiii


• Failure to avail expected amount of credit was quoted as major cause in all the sample

states except Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Expectation of institutional credit was

highest in Tamil Nadu (80%), whereas expectation of non-institutional credit was highest

in Telangana (68%). Expectation of loan waiving was cited as a reason for suicide in West

Bengal (97%), Kerala (78%), Karnataka (67%) and Tamil Nadu (63%).

• Lack of extension services was highlighted as a farming related cause which was opined

by 73 per cent of victim HHs in West Bengal and 70 per cent in Punjab. Kerala (37%) is the

only state where high per cent of victim households committed suicide due to delayed

payment to the output sold. This cause was quoted by Karnataka (7%), Telangana (6%),

Andhra Pradesh (3%) and Haryana (7%).

Debt related issues

• Members of the victim’s household attributed causes of suicides to institutional loan (44%),

non-institutional loan (37%), pressure from money lenders (36%), non-agricultural loan

(28%), pressure from institutional sources (28%) and farm equipment loan (10%) were

major indebted related causes of suicides.

• Suicides committed due to institutional loan has been stated in Karnataka (87%), TN (77%),

Maharashtra (62%), Kerala (59%) and West Bengal (50%), whereas non-institutional loan in

Punjab (80%), Karnataka (71%), West Bengal (67%), Telangana (60%) and TN (50%).

• Pressure from institutional sources for repayment of loan was reported as major cause

for suicides mainly in TN (77%), Kerala (56%) and Karnataka (51%). Pressure from non-

institutional sources was majorly quoted in Karnataka (70%), Telangana (68%), Punjab

(63%), WB (57%) and TN (50%).

Ranking of social, farming and indebtedness related causes of suicides

• The foremost reason for suicides among 13 sample states include Indebtedness due to

crop loan (44.3%), indebtedness due to non-institutional loan (37.1%), expectation of

non-institutional credit (36.9%), recovery pressure from non-institutional sources (36.1%),

non-realisation of higher output (35.4%), non-realisation of higher prices (33.3%), lack

of access to expected institutional credit (33.1%), crop failure due to lack of irrigation

(32.2%), expectation of loan waiver (31.1%), Recovery pressure from institutional sources

(28.1%), indebtedness due to non-agricultural loan (27.5%), and drug abuse and alcohol

addiction (26.5%).

• State-wise major causes reported by the victim HHs widely vary across states. Crop failure

as a cause for suicide was reported in Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana, AP,

xiv


TN and UP. Indebtedness as one of the causes was seen in Maharashtra, Telangana, AP,

Karnataka, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and WB. Non-realisation of higher output and price

reported in Telangana, AP, Kerala, TN, and Haryana. Expectation of credit was opined in

Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, TN and Punjab. Expectation of loan waiving was opined in

Maharashtra, WB and Kerala.

Impact of farmer suicides on victim households and Suggestions offered by victim households to prevent farmer suicides

• Death of the bread winner was seen to have severely affected the HHs. This impact was

reported by 34 per cent of the HHs who mentioned that there was none in their family

to earn income. The land of such families was confiscated by the private money lenders.

Discontinuation of agriculture was another impact as seen in the case of 21 per cent of

the total HHs. Such situations were evident in West Bengal (63%), Haryana (57%) and Tamil

Nadu (53%).

• Insecurity in the family (33%) and family members under depression (25%) were among

the major impacts opined by victim HHs across states. Insecurity in the family was opined

majorly in TN (87%), WB (77%) and Telangana (58%), whereas family members under

depression were opined in TN (90%) and WB (80%).

• Interestingly none of the victim HHs in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh gave up farming

practices due to the loss of family member. Overall, nearly eight per cent of victim

households sold the land after suicide.

• MP (36%), Kerala (15%), Telangana (18%) and Andhra Pradesh (13%) are the four states

where the victim HHs who sold land was in large number.

• Large number of victim households had discontinued their children’s education in Madhya

Pradesh (32%), Tamil Nadu (27%) and Gujarat (27%). Among other states, it ranged between

nil in Haryana to 17 per cent in Uttar Pradesh.

• The most prominent suggestions offered by the victim households to prevent farmer suicides

across states were: (i) Counseling, (ii) Provision of credit facilities, (iii) Crop Insurance

and compensation during crop failure, (iv) Creation of irrigation facilities, (v) Creation of

alternative income generating activities, (vi) Extension activities, (vii) Increasing MSP or

extending the MSP to crops for which it is not there and (viii) supply of quality inputs at

subsidized rates.

xv


Policy Suggestions

Suggestions that can be implemented immediately

• Crop failure and collapse of income was found to be the root cause for farmer suicides.

Therefore, it is suggested that individual farmers should be brought under the ambit of

crop insurance programme. More intensively the state must ensure through the proper

policy framework that indemnity be paid within a week after reporting of the failure. Crop

Insurance payment provided months after the crop failure is by design pushes the farmer

into the debt trap of the moneylender.

• One of the main causes for crop failure was insufficient availability of water. Hence

judicious use of available water is needed. Groundwater recharge, rain water harvesting

and, de-siltation of ponds / tanks can ensure increased water supply. To avoid under- or

overuse of water to crops, farmers should carefully monitor the weather forecast, as well

as soil and plant moisture and adapt their irrigation schedule to the current conditions.

Farmers can participate in the construction of percolation ponds and check dams in their

surrounding areas both in private and common land. This helps to increase the availability

of water.

• Poor awareness among the farmers regarding scientific and improved methods of

cultivation is one of the reasons for crop failure. This may be addressed through proper

extension activities. Instances in Andhra Pradesh indicate that in the absence of adequate

extension services, most farmers were misled by the traders and were found using

pesticides indiscriminately. The farmers were also supplied with low quality seeds. Proper

measures to eliminate such practices has to be made. The Seeds Act, 2004, Insecticide

Act 1968, Pesticide Control Act, Fertilizer Control Order, be implemented very strictly and

the abettors be punished. Special extension efforts are needed towards capacity building

of farmers for usage of quality inputs and efficient options in production and marketing.

• Though, this problem is highlighted by Andhra Pradesh victim households, the possibility

of existence of such unscrupulous dealers in other states cannot be ruled out. Hence,

Government intervention in the supply of seeds and other agricultural inputs by establishing

fair price retail outlets in rural areas, where quality of inputs is assured is required.

• It is suggested by the victim households that Government should make policy to waive or

reschedule the outstanding amount of farmers loan whenever the crop fails due to natural

calamities. This will save the farmers from debt trap. The same suggestions were offered

in the Report of the Commission on Farmers’ Welfare (2005). The report mentioned that

the interest should not be charged for the period of current rescheduling. Whenever an

area is declared as drought-affected, interest should be waived, without changing other

terms of rescheduling (GoAP, 2005).

xvi


• Local money lenders are the main non-institutional sources who charge exorbitant rates

of interest and adopt harsh ways to recover borrowed amount. Farmers prefer to borrow

normally from institutional sources but they approach non-institutional sources only when

they are denied loans from institutional sources for various reasons. Hence the government

must implement stringent laws on informal lending through fixing a cap on the interest

rates equivalent to the institutional lending rates with sufficient monitoring.

• Release of loans in phased manner is needed. Thereby proper utilization of funds can be

ensured. Releasing of funds at one stretch (usually done in Kisan Credit Card) may result

in diversion of the borrowed amount to other activities rather than cultivation. Monitoring

of funds thus released is required to ensure proper utilization.

• Government may consider extending institutional credit without collateral security of

property for tenant farmers as well.

• The compensation was extended only to farmers who own land/lease in land (on record)

and have availed credit from institutional sources against land record. But the present

study reveals that a majority of the farmers borrow from non-institutional sources as they

are denied loans by institutional sources due to various problems pertaining to land records.

Thus, the victims who borrow from such sources can be considered for compensation if the

reason for suicide happens to be farming related and may also be covered under the ambit

of crop insurance.

• Though the study had not made an attempt to obtain the data on MSP received, a fair

majority of the victim households, at aggregate level, have mentioned that MSP does

not cover cost of production. This needs to be considered by CACP. CACP may review

the methodology for arriving at MSP considering explicit and implicit costs along with

reasonable profit margin. This was suggested by 84 per cent of the Telangana victim HHs

and 100 per cent victim HHs of Andhra Pradesh.

• The condition of the victim households was seen to be worsening after the suicide event

involving the main family member. Hence certain institutional mechanism for post suicide

welfare of the family is required.

• The victim families should be given preference in availing benefits of various developmental

schemes at least for a period of five years. Such schemes may also include social welfare

schemes of State and Central Government.

• NGOs, religious institutions and agriculture department should also be involved in providing

counselling to farmers to handle the distress situation through establishment of Farmer

Welfare Cell and Help Desk Services.

xvii


• Maximum number of suicides occur during kharif season and mainly among highly indebted

farmers, therefore help lines may be established based on the information on crop failure

and extent of indebtedness. The helpline may act as immediate relief providers for the

distressed through helping them in sourcing finance to meet the immediate needs.

• Programmes aimed at addressing the health issues of marginal, small and medium rural

households should be launched. One such scheme in operation was launched by Government

of Andhra Pradesh (Aroggyasree). This programme helped the rural households to overcome

their health issues. This may be taken up on priority basis in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh

and Gujarat as 46 per cent, 44 per cent and 27 per cent of the households, respectively

indicated illness as a cause for suicide in these states.

• The study noticed that around 58 per cent of the victim HHs were BPL families. Field

evidence shows that food grains supplied is insufficient. Hence, the quantum of food grains

supplied to BPL card holders needs to be at least doubled to ensure food and nutrition

security for the victim households.

• Higher incidence of suicides among BPL, AAY card holders and among OBC category

necessitates special focus on strengthening their weakness to cope with distress conditions.

Special counseling to women farmers in Telangana may be done since the state has

witnessed highest number of women farmer suicides.

• Higher number of farmer suicides was reported in resource rich districts of Karnataka,

whereas the resource poor (drought prone) districts exhibited relatively lesser number

of suicides. This might be due to the ability of farmers in resource poor regions to cope

up with the distress and their awareness of alternate choices. On the contrary, farmers

from resource rich areas are left with fewer options to take up. For instance, in command

areas, main crops were paddy and sugarcane and during water crisis, they hardly have any

other option to sustain the crop since techniques like drip irrigation and mulching are not

viable options. Hence capacity building on coping strategies should be given to resource

rich regions as well.

Suggestions that can be implemented over a span of time

• Regulating the informal credit market through licensing and fixing the norms for charging

interest rate and terms of lending is required. There is a need to create indemnity to non-

institutional borrowers. Radhakrishna Committee recommendations (2007) regarding rural

informal credit market be implemented, which underlines the need for mitigating the

burden of farmers’ indebtedness to money lenders. It recommends a one-time measure of

providing long-term loans by banks to farmers to enable them to repay their debts to the

money lenders. Further, it recommends that Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs), civil society

xviii


organizations like farmers’ collectives and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should

be involved in arriving at negotiated settlements with the Money lenders.

• Most of the victims HHs were not seen practicing crop and enterprise diversification.

Risk hedging through crop and enterprise diversification should be encouraged to reduce

farmers’ distress aiming at sustainable income.

• Establishment of farmers’ Welfare Fund / Farmers’ Welfare Department in every state is

the need of the hour to meet social consumption needs of farmers. The Central and State

Government should contribute to this fund. NABARD can also be roped into this scheme for

fund contribution. This has been suggested by Deshpande and Arora (2010), Bhende and

Thippaiah (2010) and Radhakrishna Report (2007) as well.

• Prime Ministers Rehabilitation Package may be reintroduced in the suicide prone states by

plugging the loopholes mentioned in the study by Bhende and Thippaiah (2010). The various

components of the package may aid the distress farmer to cope with the predicament.

• Farmers may include various effective water saving techniques in cultivation like drip

irrigation and protective cultivation as lack of water was mentioned by victim HHs in most

of the sample states.

• Most of the Cooperative banks of eastern region of Uttar Pradesh are bankrupt at present

and are not functioning. Hence, there is a need for its financial revival to eliminate the

illegal money lenders from remote rural areas. In this context, NABARD may provide the

financial help to cooperative banks.

• Fodder shortage was one of the issues of concern in Maharashtra. Most of the farmers were

compelled to sell their animals at low prices due to non-availability of fodder, thereby,

discontinuing livestock farming. Such a situation should not arise and there must be enough

fodder camps so that livestock farming is continued.

• It is also suggested that rural non-farm employment programme under MNREGS must be

enhanced.

• There should be a Compassionate Distress Consulting Officer at the Department of

Agriculture heading a special cell. This cell may be assigned with the responsibility of

counseling and financing the small ventures in the villages. This may be integrated with the

employment generating departments and agencies across states and nation as a whole. It

should encourage the farmers to start dairy, poultry, fishery and other livestock activities.

• At aggregate level, 17 per cent of 528 victim households mentioned illness as cause of

suicide. The discussion with victim households of Madhya Pradesh amply highlighted the

lack of access to mental health services in rural areas. Hence, Primary health care and

xix


support system to vulnerable farmers must be strengthened so that illness does not serve as

a trigger factor to an already indebted farmer. Without exception, the victim households of

all the states were honest enough to accept that victims were alcohol addicts. Therefore,

rehabilitation centre for drug abuse and alcohol addiction should be established.

• Health insurance programme for the farmers be enhanced not only covering the Government

Hospitals but should also include the private hospitals. A scheme like Employees State

Insurance (for industrial workers), called “Farmers’ State Insurance Scheme (FSIS)” that

will enable the farmer to seek medical treatment from the ESI hospitals may go a long way

(suggested by Deshpande and Arora, 2010).

Suggestions that can be implemented in long run

• Failure of rain, attack of pest and disease leads to crop loss. This was reported as one of the

causes for farmer suicides across states. Prominent states among them are: Maharashtra,

Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal. Hence, there is a need to install automated weather

stations so that farmers are alerted on natural calamities and can take precautionary

measures. The Government of Maharashtra launched the Crop Pest Surveillance Project

(CROPSAP) during 2009-10. Though the scheme was not a huge success, further refinement

and proper measures in implementation can aid the farmers in suicide prone states.

• Another important request of victim households was to improve the access to market

within their reach. For instance, cotton is purchased at a few agricultural market centres

rather than at affordable distance by Cotton Corporation of India (CCI).

• Construction of large tanks, watersheds, de-siltation of community tanks and completion

of irrigation projects has to be given top priority so as to ensure water availability.

1


Chapter I : INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Farmer suicides has turned out to be a major socioeconomic concern in India that has resulted in

profound implications on the quality life of farmers. According to the United Nations Commission

on Sustainable Development (UNCSD), one farmer committed suicide for every 32 minutes between

1997 and 2005 in India. The prominent causes recognized for farmer suicides were bankruptcy or

indebtedness, family problems, farming related issues, illness and drug abuse/alcohol addiction.

These causes can be seen from Figure 1.1 [National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 2014].

Farmers feel a repeated sense of hopelessness due to the loss of crops, income and land. Another

factor that increases suicides is the social isolation due to the loss of communities as well as

geographical remoteness. Lack of access to mental health services in rural areas and the stigma

attached to treatment is also a contributing factor. Depression arising from exposure to agricultural

chemicals/pesticides may increase the risk for mood disorders and ultimately suicide.

The Situation Assessment Survey of the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO, 2013) has

reconfirmed the worsening situation of farm households which indicated that 51.9 per cent of

Figure 1.1. Reasons for farmer suicides in India (NCRB, 2014)

Bankruptcy or Indebtedness

20.60%

Family problems20.10%

Farming related issues17.20%

Illness13.20%

Alcoholic Addiction

4.40%

Other Causes24.50%

2


the farm households in India are indebted (Table 1.1). The percentage of indebtedness was

highest in Andhra Pradesh (93%), followed by Telangana (89%), Tamil Nadu (83%), Kerala (78%) and

Karnataka (77%). It is to note that the NSSO in its 59th round survey has revealed that given the

choice, 40 per cent of farmers would like to quit farming because it is risky and not profitable

(NSSO, 2003). Interestingly, indebted farmers have taken higher credit from institutional sources

(60%) as compared to non-institutional sources (40%) (NSSO, 2013). The Intelligence Bureau in

its report had mentioned that there was an upward trend in the number of farmers resorting to

the extreme measure of suicide in Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka and Punjab. The report

also stated that the main reason for such incidents were natural and man-made factors. “While

natural factors like uneven rains, hailstorms, droughts and floods adversely affect crop yield,

man-made factors such as pricing policies and inadequate marketing facilities resulted in post-

yield losses” (GoI, 2014).

Table 1.1. Suicides and indebtedness in farming

Sl. No. States Number of

Suicides in 2014% of farmer Suicides to all India total in 2014

% of indebted farm HHs to total farm HHs

in 2012-13

1 Maharashtra 2,568 45.5 57.3

2 Telangana 898 15.9 89.1

3 Madhya Pradesh 826 14.6 45.7

4 Chhattisgarh 443 7.8 37.2

5 Karnataka 321 5.7 77.3

6 Andhra Pradesh 160 2.8 92.9

7 Kerala 107 1.9 77.7

8 Tamil Nadu 68 1.2 82.5

9 Uttar Pradesh 63 1.1 43.8

10 Gujarat 45 0.8 42.6

11 Punjab 24 0.4 53.2

12 Haryana 14 0.3 42.3

13 West Bengal - - 51.5

14 Other states 105 1.9 -

15 UT's 8 0.1 37.2

Total 5650 100.0 51.9

Source: NCRB, 2015 & GoI, 2013

Note: “-“ indicates data not available

The NCRB publication of 2014 reported 5650 farmer suicides in the country. Maharashtra,

Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka states together accounts for 89.5 per

cent of the total farmer suicides as per the details presented in Table 1.1.

3


The main consequence of agrarian distress was discontinuation of agriculture by marginal and

small farmers. The land holding status of the victim farmers revealed that 44.5 per cent and 28

per cent of victims were marginal and small farmers, respectively, which together accounts for

72.5 per cent of total suicides in farming. The report further revealed that 53.1 per cent and 14.5

per cent of small farmers who committed suicides were reported in Maharashtra and Telangana,

respectively during 2014. Among marginal farmers, 39.7 per cent and 25.5 per cent of farmer

suicides were reported in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, respectively. Figure 1.2 represents

the overview of farmer suicides in India (NCRB, 2015).

1.2. Review of literature

The recent study in Yavatmal (major crop being Cotton) in Maharashtra and Sangrur (major

crop being Paddy) in Punjab, which have recorded relatively higher farmer suicides reported

inappropriate cropping patterns, rising resource costs, aspirational consumption, and the absence

of non-farm income in addition to indebtedness as major reasons for farmer suicides (Dandekar

and Bhattacharya, 2017).

Figure 1.2. Farmer suicides in India (NCRB, 2015)

4


Dominic Merriott (2017) revealed that the socioeconomic factors are an important cause to

suicides rather than mental health problems. He found increased indebtedness playing the

predominant role among the causative factors. The vulnerability of the farmer amid financial

situation has become the major leading factor to get distressed through the manifestation of

lacking investment and irrigation improvement, use of cash crops and non-institutional credit

sources.

Kumar (2017) revealed that the discourse of farmer suicides advances with three mutually

interconnected arguments. First, it implicitly contends that the phenomenon constitutes an

unprecedented category of suicides that relates exclusively, or at least primarily, to a set of

farming related antecedents. Second, the distinct etiological category of suicide is statistically

significant. The cumulative number of such deaths is remarkably large for any of the concerned

states in any single year since 1998. Third, it has been conceived in the modal terms of an

agrarian economic crisis.

Anneshi and Gowda (2015) concluded that both small and large farmers borrowed relatively higher

proportion of the non-institutional sources as compared to institutional sources. Accessibility

to institutional borrowing is relatively higher for large farmers. Similarly, both small and large

farmers owed more outstanding debt to non-institutional sources as compared to institutional

sources.

Macharia (2015) investigated that a majority of marginal and small farmers depend on non-

institutional credit facilities (i.e. money lenders, micro financiers and traders). He also reported

farmer suicide incidents among the scheduled castes and scheduled tribe families who had

cultivated commercial crops. Low yields, extremely reduced profits and mounting debts, made

their life extremely difficult.

Singh et al., (2014) based on the research in Punjab found that the level of education, non-

farm income, farm size and non-institutional credit were the main factors which affect the level

of farmers’ indebtedness. The study also revealed that the farmers face multiple problems in

availing institutional credit, which drives them into the debt trap of the crafty and exploitative

non-institutional sources of credit.

Chikkara and Kodan (2014) opined that the informal mechanism of credit delivery played an

important role for marginal and small farmers in meeting their credit requirements in Haryana.

In addition, maximum indebtedness was found to be in the Monthly Per capita Consumption

Expenditure (MPCE) class farm households of Rs.615 to Rs.775.

Sarah Hebous and Stefan Klonner (2014) empirically analysed the various sources of extreme

economic distress in rural India by using district-level data on farmer suicides to estimate the

5


effects of transitory economic shocks and structural change in agriculture on the incidence of

suicides in farm households. Rainfall conditions are used as an instrumental variable and it was

found that transitory spikes in poverty caused by lack of rainfall increase suicides among male

and decrease suicides among female members of farm households. However, they concluded that

the combined causal effect of a poverty shock on suicides in farm households has been positive.

Also, a shift from subsistence crops to cash crops, especially cotton, was found to be associated

with a decrease in male suicides.

Mohanty (2013) in a study conducted in Amravati and Yavatmal district argued that crop loss and

egoistic factors led to suicidal tendency among small farmers. On the contrary, suicides of large

and medium farmers who belong to higher castes were attributed mainly to the anomic forces

generated by failure in business, trade and politics. The socio-cultural factors such as old age,

illness, family tension, etc., further added their urge to commit suicides. They concluded that

the suicides of farmers are neither properly anomic nor egoistic rather they are ego-anomic in

nature.

Mohanty (2013) views farmer suicides as having resulted from a combination of ecological,

economic and social crisis. He goes to say that it points to the modern agricultural practice,

which has become an independent, household or family enterprise, without requiring any link

and interaction among the cultivators themselves.

Vasavi (2012) explained in her book, Shadow Spaces, stated that, bewilderment, loss of meaning

and uncertainty among farmers due to the unrelenting failures of policies and responses is

doubtful to change unless there is a paradigm shift in the general outlook that starts with trusting

agriculturists’ knowledge and working towards those elements that enhance their capacities for

collective action.

Bhende and Thippaiah (2010) concluded that farmers in the suicide-prone districts of Andhra

Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra states were aware of the PMs package and the

department of agriculture, gram panchayats and others had given due publicity to this programme.

Farmers had availed relief measures such as interest waiver, rescheduling of loans and also a

subsidy under various schemes, which enabled them to be eligible for fresh loans and augment

their incomes through subsidiary activities. It was also revealed that collusion between local

leaders and government officials, which had led to wealthy farmers receiving ex-gratia payment

bypassing the poor. Most of the farmers in the suicide-prone districts benefited from one or the

other scheme of the PM package. However, their capacity to cope with the drought conditions

has been weak and the PM’s package through its multiple schemes had limited positive impact

on this front.

Most studies on suicides fail to look at the phenomena from an interdisciplinary perspective.

Emile Durkheim (1896) a sociologist highlighted that suicide rates are dependent upon the

6


degree to which individuals were integrated into society and the degree to which society regulates

individual behaviour. He mentioned that in the modern society there are two major types of

suicides: (i) Increasing detachment from others resulting in egoistical suicide. For instance, the

unmarried and childless are less integrated and hence susceptible to a higher suicide rate, and

(ii) Dissatisfaction in relation to expectations resulting in anomic suicide. For instance, in times

of price crash of crops, there is more probability of suicides if the farmers’ price expectations are

not met (Lester, 1994 cited in Deshpande and Saroj Arora, 2010).

Kumar et al., (2010) examined the performance of agricultural credit flow and has identified

the determinants of increased use of institutional credit at the farm household level in India. The

result indicated that the quantum of institutional credit availed by the farming households was

affected by a number of socio-demographic factors which include education, farm size, family

size, caste, gender, occupation of household, etc.

Surinder Sud (2009) stated that the government’s response and relief packages have generally

been ineffective, misdirected and flawed. It has focused on credit and loan, rather than income,

productivity and farmer prosperity and also stated that the government has failed to understand

that debt relief postpones the problem and a more lasting answer to farmer distress can only

come from reliable income sources, higher crop yield per hectare, irrigation and infrastructure

security.

Behere and Behere (2008) reported that various factors like chronic indebtedness, inability

to pay interest over years, economic decline grain drain, rising costs of agricultural inputs and

falling prices of agricultural produce lead to family disputes, depression and alcoholism, etc.,

were eventually responsible for suicides among the farmers. It was also seen that compensation

post-suicide helped the family to repay debt. They also opined that the causes are multi-

factorial, cumulative, repetitive and progressive, leading an individual to a state of helplessness,

worthlessness and hopelessness, obviously influenced by his social strengths and weaknesses

along with his mental health status.

Golait (2007) acknowledged the positive role of crop diversification initiative announced in the

government’s response to farmer suicides. Indian agriculture still suffers from low productivity,

falling water levels, expensive credit, distorted market, middlemen and intermediaries who

increase cost, but do not add much value, laws that stifle private investment, controlled prices,

poor infrastructure, and inappropriate research. Thus, the approach with mere emphasis on

credit in isolation from the above factors will not help agriculture. Furthermore, a more pro-

active role in creating and maintaining reliable irrigation and other agricultural infrastructure is

necessary to address farmer distress in India.

7


According to Meeta and Rajivlochan (2006), some of the problems common among the suicide

victims were (i) hopelessness in being unable to resolve the dilemmas of personal life and an

inability to find funds for various activities or repay loans, (ii) absence of any person, group, or

institution to whom to turn to in order to seek reliable advice - whether for agricultural operations

or for seeking funds or for handling private and personal issues, (iii) little knowledge about

institutional mechanisms like the Minimum Support Price (MSP) that would affect marketing,

technical knowledge and no reliable sources from where such knowledge and advice could be

accessed and (iv) chronic alcoholism and drug abuse among the rural population.

Gupta (2005) aptly observes that Indian agriculture has always lurched from crisis to crisis. If

the monsoon is good then there is flood, if they are bad there is drought, if the production of

mangoes is excellent then there is a glut and prices fall, and if the onion crop fails, then that

too brings tears. The artisanal nature of agriculture has always kept farmers on tenterhooks, not

knowing quite how to manage their economy, except to play it by (y) ear thus shedding a light on

the plight of the Indian farmer.

Mohanty and Shroff (2004) revealed that though crop losses, indebtedness and market

imperfections cause economic hardship to farmers. Social factors are also at work which leads in

some cases to their suicides.

Deshpande (2002), attributed the causes of suicides to the culmination of four factors namely,

events, stressors, actors and triggers. This categorization stems from the mental set up of victims.

Events such as crop loss, bore-well failure, price crash, family problems, property disputes and

daughter’s marriage act as stress creators, when two or more events club together. Usually

illness of the individual or any family members, heavy borrowing, continued disputes in the

family or land related problems act as stressors’. These become lethal in combination with the

events, but further ignition comes through the actors and triggers incidence. Given this complex

nature of the phenomena, it is certainly difficult to pinpoint one particular reason for the suicide

(Deshpande, 2002).

Farmer suicides is a problem of the type that is theoretical and interpretative in nature. Although

there is an availability of empirical data, due to a lack of sufficient understanding of the trends

and complex patterns, there exists a deficiency in establishing interrelationships (Kaviraj, 1984).

1.3. Objectives

Ever since the initial incidences of farmers suicides, Government of India launched several

developmental programmes to avert agrarian crisis. Despite this, farmer suicides persisted.

The prominent among them were Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation Package (PMRP) launched in

September, 2006 in 31 suicide prone districts covered in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka,

and Kerala with a budget allocation of Rs.16,978 crore. The package was designed to meet the

8


short and long term needs of the distressed farmers. The package attempted to help farmers

who were finding it hard to repay the loans. In the package, irrigation facilities was created,

seeds and other inputs were supplied. In addition to these, an ex-gratia amount of Rs. 50 lakhs

was provided for each district. The distressed farmers of 31 districts found relief to some

extent. However, the package did not meet the expectations (Bhende and Thippaiah, 2010).

The Radhakrishna report (2007) also pointed out that the Government did not optimally utilize

the fund under PMRP. Some other notable programmes of the Central Government for improving

the income of farmers are Kisan Credit Cards (KCC), revival package for short term cooperative

credit structure, concessional interest schemes, interest subvention schemes, interest subvention

against negotiable warehouse receipt, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee

Act (MGNREGA), National Agricultural Development Programme (NADP), National Mission on

Micro Irrigation (NMMI), National Horticulture Mission (NHM) and National Mission for Sustainable

Agriculture (NMSA). To name a few recent prominent programmes to address agrarian distress are

Pradhana Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana, 2015 (PMKSY) and Pradhana Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana

(PMFBY), 2016 have been implemented. Despite all these measures, farmer suicides remained

a major challenge in the country. It is with this background the Policy Division of Department

of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare with the approval of its Secretary, decided to

conduct the present study with the following objectives:

• To analyze the incidence and spread of farmer suicides in selected states and to map the

hotspots of suicide.

• To study the socioeconomic profile, cropping pattern and profitability in the victim’s

household.

• To study the causes leading to suicides.

• To recommend policies to avert farmer suicides.

1.4. Data and Methodology

The methodology was finalized in the workshop attended by representatives of DES / AER

division, Experts and Agro-Economic Research Centres at the Institute of Economic Growth, New

Delhi. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) was the only primary source of data on farmer

suicides in the country. The publication of NCRB for the year 2014 under the title “Accidental

deaths and suicides in India - 2014” was the latest data source available. This publication had

recorded the number of suicides of agricultural laborers and farmers separately. In the previous

publications, NCRB had recorded both these categories as self-employed in agriculture. However,

the publication had not disaggregated the data at district level. The NCRB publication served

as a source for data at all India level. The state-wise farmer suicides data was furnished by the

9


Department of Agriculture and related department of the respective states. The sample primary

data collection was confined exclusively to those victim households who were cultivating either

their own land or on lease basis.

The results of the study is based on the primary data obtained from the victim HHs and secondary

data obtained from Department of Agriculture and related departments of respective states. The

study included Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Telangana and Karnataka, which are

the major suicide prone states in the country and another eight states, where farmer suicides was

noticed. Thus, a total of 13 states were included in the study covered 46 districts, 138 taluks, 388

villages and 528 victim households, which can be seen in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2. Sample size

Sl. No. States No. of

Districts

No. of Taluka/Blocks

No. of Villages

No. of Victim HHs interviewed

% to the total

sample

1 Maharashtra 5 13 43 50 9.4

2 Madhya Pradesh 1 12 49 50 9.4

3 Telangana 2 15 45 50 9.4

4 Andhra Pradesh 2 13 29 30 5.7

5 Chhattisgarh 1 4 19 50 9.5

6 Karnataka 4 12 100 107 20.3

7 Kerala 4 10 17 27 5.1

8 Tamil Nadu 5 23 29 30 5.7

9 Uttar Pradesh 2 5 30 30 5.7

10 Gujarat 8 17 30 30 5.7

11 Punjab 6 20 30 30 5.7

12 Haryana 3 7 12 14 2.7

13 West Bengal 3 - - 30 5.7

Total 46 136 388 528 100.0

Note: “-” indicates data not furnished

Primary data was collected using multi-stage sampling technique. The sample size was fixed based

on the number of farmer suicides per hectare of net sown area which was highest in Maharashtra,

Telangana, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka. In each of these states, a minimum

of 50 samples was covered. However, 107 victim households were covered in Karnataka. In the

10


remaining states the sample size covered was 30 except for Haryana where it was 14 since the

state had witnessed the least number of suicides during study period. Thus, a total of 528 victim

HHs were interviewed, which accounts to 6.63 per cent of total farmer suicides (7959) in thirteen

states during 2015-16. The districts with highest number of suicides in respective sample states

were selected for the study. The victim HHs were contacted using the information obtained from

the Department of Agriculture of the respective sample states for the period, 1st July, 2015 and

30th June, 2016.

Primary data was collected from the victim households through a structured questionnaire. The

questionnaire designed covered basic data such as family details, land holding, expenditure

pattern and credit details. In addition, the households were enquired about social, farming

related, and indebtedness related causes of suicide. Data for understanding the post suicide

situation of family was also collected.

1.5. Structure of the report

The study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter focuses on background of study, review

of literature, objectives, data and methodology. The scenario of farmer suicides in sample states

was covered in second chapter. The socioeconomic profile of victims and their family members,

land holding, cropping pattern and particulars of credit was presented in Chapter three. Chapter

four presents the causes and impacts of farmer suicides and suggestions to prevent suicides. The

last chapter presents the major findings and offers policy suggestions.

11


Field visit - Andhra Pradesh

Field visit - Karnataka

12


Chapter II : FARMER SUICIDES SCENARIO IN INDIA

2.1. Intensity of farmer suicides in India

According to NCRB, suicides in agriculture had decreased by 26 per cent from 16,603 in 2000 to

12,360 in 2014. Figure 2.1 depicts the number of suicides reported in agriculture in the country

for the last fifteen years. The efforts of Central and State Government in addressing farmer

suicides can be clearly seen from the declining trend in the number of suicides overtime.

State-wise farmer suicides are presented in Table 2.1. There were 7,959 suicide incidents

recorded in the sample states as per the records of the state department of agriculture. It can

be seen from the table that Maharashtra, Karnataka and Chhattisgarh accounts for 73 per cent of

the total farmer suicides among the sample states. The intensity of suicides expressed in terms

of number of suicides per lakh hectare of - gross sown area, net sown area and farming families

were relatively higher in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, and Chhattisgarh

as compared to remaining sample states. The intensity of suicides in these five states together

accounts for 14 farmers per lakh hectare of net sown area, 10 farmers per hectare of gross

cropped area, and 18 farmers per lakh farming families.

The intensity of suicides with respect to the number of suicides per lakh hectare of net sown area

was highest in Chhattisgarh (21), followed by Maharashtra (19), Telangana (15) and Karnataka

(15). The intensity of suicides with respect to the number of suicides per lakh farming families

Figure 2.1. Suicides reported in agriculture in India (NCRB, 2014)

16,603 16,415

17,97117,164

18,241

17,131 17,06016,632 16,796

17,368

15,964

14,027 13,754

11,77212,360

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Tota

l no.

of f

arm

er su

icid

es

13


was highest in Maharashtra (25), followed by Chhattisgarh (24) and Karnataka (19). This reflects

that these states are more vulnerable to farmer suicides as compared to the remaining states.

Table 2.1. Details of farmer suicides in sample states

Sl. No. States Data

pertains to

No. of farmer suicides

% of state total

No. of farmer suicides per lakh

hectare of NSA

No. of farmer suicides per lakh

hectare of GCA

No. of farmer suicides per lakh farming families

1 Maharashtra Jul 2015 to Jun 2016

3361 42.2 19.4 14.4 24.5

2 Madhya Pradesh 2014-15* 826 10.4 5.4 3.4 8.4

3 Telangana Jul 2015 to Jun 2015

626 7.9 15.0 12.8 11.3

4 Andhra Pradesh Jul 2015 to Jun 2016

79 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.0

5 Chhattisgarh Jan 2014 to Dec 2014

959 12.0 20.5 16.7 24.0

6 Karnataka Jul 2015 to Jun 2016

1490 18.7 15.0 12.0 19.0

7 Kerala 2015-16* 50 0.6 2.5 1.9 1

8 Tamil Nadu 2015-16* 45 0.6 0.9 0.8 1

9 Uttar Pradesh 2015* 324 4.1 2.0 1.3 1.4

10 Gujarat Jan 2014 to Dec 2014

45 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.0

11 Punjab Jan 2014 to Dec 2014

98 1.2 2.4 1.3 9.3

12 Haryana 2014-15* 24 0.3 0.7 0.4 1.5

13 West Bengal 26 cases refer to 2015 and 6 cases refers to 2016

32 0.4 - - -

Total 7959 100 0.1 0.2 0.1

Note: “-” indicates data not available; * Months not known

The peak of farmers’ frustration to the degree of committing suicide was during the four months

of Kharif from July 2015 to October 2015 which recorded 44 per cent of the farmer suicides. The

highest percentage of suicides during Kharif among sample states was reported in West Bengal

(62%), followed by Karnataka (56%), Andhra Pradesh (54%) and Telangana (51%). Whereas in

Maharashtra, the distribution was almost uniform across seasons, during kharif, Rabi and summer

being 38 per cent, 32 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively. Figure 2.2 and Table 2.2 depicts

the month wise number of farmer suicides. Hence extra efforts through counselling, and financial

help for distressed farmers are needed during the peak months of farmer suicides.

14


2.2. Government initiatives to address agrarian distress and suicides

The Central and State governments have launched several programmes to address issues

associated with farmer suicides. The Central Government hasn’t only tried to rehabilitate

victimized households, but also launched schemes to reduce farmer distress and suicides in India.

The recent prominent programmes include the Prime Minister Rehabilitation Package (PMRP),

Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) and Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY).

Some of the major Central and State Government programmes are discussed below.

2.2.1. Central Government Initiatives

2.2.1(a). Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation Package (PMRP)

This package was launched in September, 2006 in 31 districts covering 4 states. The districts

were identified mainly in those states with higher number of farmer suicides. By following this

criteria, 16 districts in Andhra Pradesh, six in Maharashtra, six in Karnataka and three in Kerala

were covered. The package included immediate and medium-term measures aimed at mitigating

the distress of farmers. The specific objectives of the package were: (i) debt relief to farmers;

(ii) improved supply of institutional credit; (iii) crop centric approach to agriculture; (iv) assured

irrigation facilities; (v) watershed management; (vi) better extension and farming support

services; and (vii) improved marketing facilities and subsidiary income opportunities through

horticulture, livestock, dairying and fisheries. An amount of Rs.16978.69 crores was earmarked

for this purpose (Bhende and Thippaiah, 2010), of this, 62.31 per cent was apportioned for

Figure 2.2. Month-wise number of farmer suicides in sample states during 2015-16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800N

o. o

f far

mer

suic

ides

Telangana Karnataka MaharashtraAndhra Pradesh TN GujarathHaryana West Bengal Total

15


Tabl

e 2.

2. M

onth

-wis

e fa

rmer

sui

cide

s in

sam

ple

stat

es d

urin

g 20

15-1

6

Sl.

No.

Mon

ths

Mah

aras

htra

Tela

ngan

aA

ndhr

a Pr

ades

hK

arna

taka

Tam

il N

adu

Guj

arat

Har

yana

Wes

t Ben

gal

Tota

l

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

no. o

f fa

rmer

su

icid

es

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

% to

to

tal

No.

of

farm

er

suic

ides

1JU

L, 15

272

8.136

5.88

10.1

211

14.2

311

.54

9.51

2.620

15.9

519

10.1

2AU

G, 15

340

10.1

447.0

911

.422

615

.21

3.92

4.80

0.011

8.758

911

.4

3SE

P, 15

324

9.611

318

.111

13.9

162

10.9

27.7

614

.32

5.325

19.8

532

10.3

4OC

T, 15

344

10.2

125

20.0

1519

.023

715

.93

11.5

49.5

410

.522

17.5

629

12.2

5NO

V, 15

293

8.759

9.49

11.4

130

8.71

3.96

14.3

615

.813

10.2

458

8.9

6DE

C, 15

321

9.571

11.3

911

.411

07.4

27.7

12.4

410

.53

2.445

08.7

7JA

N, 16

240

7.149

7.83

3.810

77.2

27.7

511

.92

5.44

3.236

37.0

8FE

B, 16

214

6.449

7.88

10.1

805.4

27.7

12.4

410

.53

2.431

26.0

9MA

R, 16

259

7.726

4.22

2.574

5.03

11.5

511

.94

10.5

43.2

351

6.8

10AP

R, 16

263

7.815

2.45

6.476

5.12

7.73

7.14

10.5

75.6

360

7.0

11MA

Y, 16

254

7.622

3.50

0.051

3.42

7.71

2.41

2.66

4.831

56.1

12JU

N, 16

237

7.217

2.70

0.026

1.73

11.5

49.5

615

.88

6.328

45.5

Tota

l33

6110

0.0

626

100.

079

100.

014

9010

0.0

2610

0.0

4210

0.0

3810

0.0

126

100.

051

6210

0.0

Not

e: M

onth

-wis

e fa

rmer

sui

cide

dat

a w

as n

ot a

vail

able

for

Ker

ala,

MP,

Chh

atti

sgar

h, P

unja

b, a

nd U

P

16


subsidy/grants and the remaining 37.69 per cent for loans. The entire amount was proposed to

be utilized in four states covering 31 districts. Brief note about the services extended through

the scheme is stated hereunder:

• The programme aided the farm families in coping up with the distress situation. Rescheduling

of loan amount and waiving off the interest was one among the various provisions extended

by the programme in Karnataka.

• The programme also distributed certified seeds to farmers and increase in the productivity

was also reported.

• The scheme for development of micro irrigation was also included as a component in

the Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation Package to improve the efficiency of irrigation water,

resulting in increased per-hectare yield as well as the income of the farmer households.

• Strengthening of extension services was one of the components of the PM’s package.

Therefore, under this scheme, an effective and efficient extension service mechanism was

put in place in the identified districts for empowering the farmers. Agriculture Technology

Management Agencies (ATMA) was operationalized in all the districts to ensure extension

support and convergence at the district level in AP, Kerala, Karnataka, and Maharashtra.

• In order to augment / support the income of farmers, the livestock/dairy and fishery

activities were included as Subsidiary Income-Generating Activities component in the PM’s

package. The package included components like supply of high milk yielding animals, calf-

rearing, feed and fodder supply, animal health care, setting up of bulk milk-chilling plants,

fodder block-making units, provision of breeding services and estrus synchronisation, etc.

• In addition to these, the programme also included fisheries, NHM, minor irrigation

participatory watershed programme, as its components.

However, the programme was implemented till 2009-10 and was not extended. The programme

may be re-introduced by overcoming the shortcomings which are mentioned hereunder. The

major drawbacks in the PMRP are (Bhende and Thippaiah, 2010):

• There were no clear-cut guidelines for disbursement of ex-gratia. As such, the average

amount of ex-gratia received by the beneficiary varied widely not only across states but

also within the state.

• Distribution of certified seeds at subsidised rates, accelerated irrigation benefit programme,

watershed development programme and micro irrigation scheme did increase area under

irrigation as desired.

17


• Many beneficiaries were not aware about the quantum of interest waived or the yearly

instalment he/she has to repay. As a result, many were unaware of the quantum of debt

relief received.

2.2.1(b). Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)

The programme envisages “One nation - One scheme” theme. It incorporates the best features

of all the previous crop insurance schemes and at the same time, shortcomings of previous

schemes was taken care. The PMFBY replaces National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) as

well as Modified NAIS. The Scheme was implemented during Kharif, 2016. Under this scheme, the

premium rate paid by the farmer will be to a maximum of two per cent of kharif crops and 1.5 per

cent of Rabi crops of the sum insured. The remaining amount of the premium would be paid by

the State and Central Government. In fact, the scheme will go beyond the usual norms and even

compensate for loss of seed plants and post-harvest damage. The scheme will give an immediate

payment of 25 per cent of compensation to farmers directly to their bank accounts and has the

goal of increasing it to 50 per cent.

2.2.1(c). Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY)

The scheme is aimed at improving irrigation facilities in the country through micro-irrigation

projects and end-to-end irrigation solutions. The scheme will also provide Rs.200 crores earmarked

as Agri-Tech Infrastructure Fund (ATIF), the corpus required to promote the National Agricultural

Market (NAM) for promoting easy access to markets for farmers.

2.2.1(d). Relief to farmers in input subsidy

In 2015, the Government announced that farmers would be eligible for input subsidy if 33 per

cent of their crop is damaged, as against 50 per cent or more which was followed earlier. Further,

the Government also announced that the input subsidy given to distressed farmers would be

enhanced by 50 per cent to the existing amount.

2.2.1(e). Soil Health Card (SHC)

The Government issues soil health cards to farmers containing crop-wise recommendations of

nutrients and fertilizers for promoting its efficient use, aiming at enhancing productivity. A total

of 14,752,382 (1.47 crore) SHCs was issued in the country as on 29th March 2016.

2.2.1(f). Agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme (2008)

The Government of India implemented the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme in

2008 to benefit over 36 million farmers at the cost of Rs.653 billion. This spending was aimed at

waiving off a part of loan principal as well as the interest owed by the farmers. Direct agricultural

loan to the distressed farmers under Kisan Credit Card (KCC) was also covered under this Scheme.

18


In addition to all these schemes, the Government increased the credit flow. This is evident

from the fact that the credit flow increased by 39 per cent from Rs.607376 crores in 2012-13 to

Rs.845328.23 crores in 2014-15 (Indiastat, 2017).

2.2.2. State Government Initiatives

Certain State Governments provide monetary compensation to the farm families whose member

had committed suicide. A few states have also resorted to waiving of loan from cooperative

societies, supplying seeds, promoting micro-irrigation in horticulture, construction of water

harvesting structures, etc.

2.2.2(a). Maharashtra Bill to regulate farmer loan terms (2008)

The State Government of Maharashtra passed the Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2008 to

regulate all private money lending to farmers. The bill fixed maximum interest rates on any loans

to farmers. The interest rate was fixed slightly above the money lending rate by the Reserve Bank

of India. The bill had made provision to cover pending loans as well.

2.2.2(b). Maharashtra relief package (2010)

The State Government of Maharashtra made it illegal during 2010 for non-licensed money lenders

from seeking loan repayment. The Government also announced that it would form village farmer

self-help groups for disbursement of government financed loans. Low premium crop insurance

program was implemented where farmers had to contribute 50 per cent of the premium and

remaining was contributed by the government. The government further announced that it will

finance for a marriage fund under its ‘Samudaik Lagna’ with Rupees one crore per year per

district for community marriage celebrations to minimize the cost of marriage celebrations, a

cause of suicides among farmers.

2.2.2(c). Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission (Amendment) Bill (2012)

Kerala Farmers Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 came into effect in 2012. The act provides

benefits to all distressed farmers through loans. Due to introduction of this Act, the farmer

suicides rate had declined in Kerala. The commission has engaged in a case-by-case scrutiny of the

magnitude of debt and the requisite relief in Wayanad district. The commission not only provides

financial relief measures but also provided moral support. Government had allocated Rs.220.8

crores for farmers’ debt relief from 2006 to 2011, but only Rs.62.4 crores had been disbursed.

Government had adopted farmer-friendly policies during 2006-11. Further the state’s debt relief

commission had provided relief to all indebted farmers and had doubled the procurement price

in a period of five years. The government had also expanded procurement, interest-free loans to

paddy farmers.

19


In addition to these programmes, compensation is being paid to the kith and kin of victimized

households in few states. The details of compensation paid to the deceased victim households

of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Gujarat are presented in Table 2.3. Only a few

states provided compensation to the victim households.

According to honourable Supreme Court “paying compensation to the families of such victims”

was not a real solution to avert suicides.

The Supreme Court of India expressed that the government was inefficient in tackling the

problem of farmer suicide. The issue of farmer suicides was of extreme importance and paying

compensation to the families of such victims “post-facto” was not the real solution. The remedy

to the problem is not paying compensation to farmers after the suicide, but the schemes should

try to prevent suicides (RStv, 2017).

Table 2.3. State-wise details of compensation paid to victim HHs during 2015-16

Sl. No. States No. of victim HHs

compensated

Total amount of compensation paid

(in Rs. Lakh)

Compensation paid per victim HHs (in Rs. Lakh)

1 Maharashtra 2312 2312.0 1.0

2 Andhra Pradesh 47 233.0 4.9

3 Karnataka 1192 3920.0 5.0

4 Gujarat 1 0.1 0.1

5 Telangana 320 1440.80 4.5

Note: Details of compensation not available for TN, Kerala, MP, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Haryana, UP and WB

2.2.2(d). Various other state initiatives to address agrarian distress and farmer suicides

Maharashtra: The Government of Maharashtra stated that although it had no formal scheme for

providing assistance to families of farmers who committed suicide, Rupees one lakh is provided

on a discretionary basis from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. In January 2006, a policy decision

was made by the State Government to constitute a separate and independent committee for

each District with the Collector as its head.

Further, the assistance will not be from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, but from social security

and welfare fund which is a regular budgetary head. The state government further submitted

that initial assistance was being given only to those cases which satisfied a triple test, namely

(i) the deceased farmer should be an agriculturist; (ii) the deceased farmer should have been

indebted to a financial institution; and (iii) there should have been pressing for the recovery or

repayment of the loan at the behest of the creditor. However, on 27th February, 2006, a policy

decision was taken by the state government to broaden the criterion for providing financial

assistance to families of those farmers who had committed suicide. Under the new criteria, the

20


deceased farmer is to be presumed to be an agriculturist, if any member in the family holds

agricultural land.

The compensation package in Maharashtra was Rupees one lakh per victim family, out of which

Rs.30000 was paid in cash and Rs.70000 was deposited in the bank as a fixed deposit. Discussions

with the bereaved families revealed that in addition to the compensation of Rupees one lakh,

they also received seed and fertilizer as compensation in kind. Besides, these schemes, a number

of other schemes were also introduced and implemented by the government at the district level

to arrest suicides among the farming community. It was observed that spate of suicides among

farmers was highly concentrated in the districts of Yavatmal and Osmanabad and more or less

peaked in 2015. Thus, the Yavatmal district administration submitted a proposal to the state

government, which in turn issued a government resolution on 24th July, 2015, where it resolved

to make two districts – Osmanabad and Yavatmal, suicide free in two years.

The Government recommended these district administrations to launch a project “Baliraja

Chetana Abhiyan” with the purpose of creating mass awareness among the distressed farmers

across the districts with respect to government sponsored schemes for the overall welfare of

farmers so as to prevent them from taking any extreme steps. The state allotted Rs.32 crore

annually for the implementation of the scheme to be carried out in the district in the next three

years. The scheme entails mass marriages for the daughters of farmers, counselling to minimize

the mental stress of the farmers, boost the morale of the farmers through health care camps,

training to youths for setting up small industrial units and encouraging the farmers to join the

village based cooperative credit societies (Abraham, 2016).

Karnataka: Based on the Dr. G.K. Veeresh committee report Rupees one lakh was paid as

compensation to the families of those farmers who committed suicide during the 2003 - 04 period.

Subsequently, effective from April 2015, the compensation amount was increased to Rupees two

lakhs per victim household. But the amount was later revised to Rupees five lakhs in October

2015. Out of the total reported farmer suicides in Karnataka (1490), 53 per cent of the cases have

been accepted for compensation as the suicides have occurred due to farming related factors.

Compensation of Rupees five lakh has been distributed to these victim households amounting to

Rs.39.20 crores for the entire state. It is noted that in the case of 20 per cent of the victims, the

decision regarding compensation was pending and in the case of 27 per cent of the victims the

applications have been rejected.

Andhra Pradesh: Measures for comforting the distressed families were taken up well before

the final sanction of financial assistance. Considering the family in the aftermath of suicide in

the most vulnerable category as a single-parent family, the following unconditional support was

provided: Inclusion in Antyodaya scheme; support under National Family Benefit scheme (NFBs);

admission of children in government residential schools; free education to the children of victim

21


in private schools as a part of the provisions of right to education act; Housing under Indira Awas

Yojana (IAY) or equivalent state government scheme; pensions; eligibility for Aroggyasree scheme

was provided; priority in economic support under government schemes and eligibility relaxation

in government schemes was also given. Out of the total 79 farmers who committed suicide, only

59.49 per cent of farmer families could receive compensation during 2015-16. The total amount

of compensation paid in the state during the year 2015-16 was Rs.233.34 lakh. On an average,

the compensation amount paid per family is reported as Rs.4.96 lakh.

Gujarat: There is no compensation scheme for victim HHs. There was only one instance where

the victim household in Surendranagar district had received compensation of Rs.10,000 from

Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) of Rajkot district.

Tamil Nadu: During 2012-13, all the districts of the state were declared as drought affected

except Chennai. Government had compensated the affected farmers at the rate of Rs.15,000 per

acre including cost of cultivation. A compensation of Rs.3 lakh per victim HHs was also announced.

During 2014-15, Rs.5700 crores was announced for loan waiving, covering marginal and small

farmers, who have taken short and medium-term crop loan from cooperative banks. Nearly, 8.5

lakh farmers were benefited with this initiative. In total, Rs.20,000 crore was distributed in terms

of crop loan to the farmers from cooperative banks during 2011-16. During 2016, government had

distributed Rs.6000 crore through cooperative society as compensation.

Telangana: A total of 320 victim households were compensated during 2015-16. Total amount of

compensation paid was Rs.1,441 lakh, which accounted to Rs.4.5 lakh per victim household.

22


Field visit - Madhya Pradesh

Field visit - Telangana

23


Chapter III : SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND CROPPING PATTERN

Results of the primary data on socioeconomic profile of the sample victim households covered

in 13 states are presented in this chapter. Additionally, cropping pattern, income derived from

agriculture and details of credit availed are also included.

3.1. Type of respondents

Considering that spouses are more aware of the socioeconomic status of their life partners than

any other family member, the study accorded top-priority to interview the spouse of the victim.

Only in the instance of spouse being unable to answer, children, parents or close relative of

victim were interviewed. It can be seen from Table 3.1 that 55.5 per cent of the respondents

across sample states was spouse or heir of the victim. The per cent of spouses as respondents

was lesser in Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat as compared to other states. However, special

care was taken in these states during data collection for data accuracy.

Table 3.1. State-wise details on the type of respondents

Sl. No. States

Data collected from

Spouse or Heir of victim (% to total sample of HHs)

Others like parents, brothers/ sisters, relatives, friends of

victim (% to total sample of HHs)

1 Maharashtra 48.0 52.0

2 Madhya Pradesh 94.0 6.0

3 Telangana 20.0 80.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 93.3 6.7

5 Chhattisgarh 40.0 60.0

6 Karnataka 69.2 30.8

7 Kerala 68.0 32.0

8 Tamil Nadu 73.0 27.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 30.0 70.0

10 Gujarat 30.0 70.0

11 Punjab 40.0 60.0

12 Haryana 42.9 57.1

13 West Bengal 46.7 53.3

Total 55.5 44.5

Source: Primary survey (2015-16)

24


3.2. Details of AAY, BPL and APL cards possessed by victim households

Government provides mainly three types of ration cards to the citizens depending on the level of

poverty namely Above Poverty Line (APL), Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana

(AAY). The card held by victim HHs closely reflect their economic condition. It can be seen from

the Table 3.2 that two-third of victim HHs (66%) possessed BPL and AAY cards. The percentage

of victims belonging to AAY or BPL category was relatively higher in AP (93%), Karnataka (86%),

Telangana (86%), West Bengal (80%), TN (80%), Chhattisgarh (78%), Maharashtra (62%) and MP

(60%). A higher number of farmers who belong to BPL or AAY committed suicide in major suicide

prone states. The results support the positive relation between suicide and poverty. It is to note

that 64 per cent of victims in Haryana and 27 per cent in Punjab reported that they do not have

any ration card.

Table 3.2. State-wise details of AAY, BPL and APL cards possessed by victim households

Sl. No. States

Per cent of HHs to total sample of respective states Per cent of HHs who

do not hold any cardAAY BPL APL Total

1 Maharashtra 6.0 56.0 36.0 98.0 2.0

2 Madhya Pradesh 12.0 48.0 40.0 100.0 0.0

3 Telangana 22.0 64.0 14.0 100.0 0.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 10.0 83.3 6.7 100.0 0.0

5 Chhattisgarh 18.0 60.0 22.0 100.0 0.0

6 Karnataka 2.8 83.2 5.6 91.6 8.4

7 Kerala 0.0 26.0 74.0 100.0 0.0

8 Tamil Nadu 0.0 80.0 13.0 93.0 7.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 0.0 30.0 70.0 100.0 0.0

10 Gujarat 3.0 30.0 67.0 100.0 0.0

11 Punjab 0.0 10.0 63.0 73.0 27.0

12 Haryana 0.0 35.7 0.0 35.7 64.3

13 West Bengal 13.3 66.7 20.0 100.0 0.0

Total 8.3 57.8 29.2 95.3 4.7


3.3. Socioeconomic characteristics of victims

3.3.1 Gender, social status, and age of victims

Eight sample states witnessed suicide incidents of female farmers. Telangana reported highest

number of suicide of female farmers (36%) followed by Gujarat (10%), Tamil Nadu (7%), West

Bengal (6.7%), Karnataka (3.7%), MP (2%), and Maharashtra (2%). One fourth of the total victims

of 13 states were SC (16%) and ST (9%) and remaining three-fourth were either backward (46%)

or general (29%) category. Seventy per cent of the sample victims of Chhattisgarh were STs (56%)

25


and SCs (14%) which was followed by 50 per cent in West Bengal, 47 per cent in Uttar Pradesh and

40 per cent in Tamil Nadu. The per cent of SCs and STs ranged between three per cent in Punjab

to 70 per cent in Chhattisgarh (Table 3.3).

The highest number of victims across sample states belong to Hindu religion (90%) followed by

others (6.4%), Christian (2%) and Muslims (1.6%). It is to note that 33 per cent of the victims in

Kerala belong to Christian religion.

Seventy per cent of the victims were in the age group of 31 to 60 years, 17 per cent in less than

30 years and 13 per cent in above 60 years. Higher number of farmer suicides in the age group of

31 to 60 years has been reported in AP (90%), Karnataka (83%), MP (82%), Haryana (79%), Punjab

(73%), Chhattisgarh (70%), Gujarat (70%), Maharashtra (62%), Telangana (60%) and West Bengal

(60%) (Table 3.3). The results show that the highest number of suicides is in the middle age group

who are fully involved in agricultural activities.

Table 3.3. Gender, social status and age of victims

Sl. No.

States

Per cent to total sample of respective states

Gender Social status Religion Age group

Male Female SC ST OBC General Hindu Muslim Christian OthersUp

to 30 years

31 to 60

years

Above 60

years

1 Maharashtra 98.0 2.0 20.0 12.0 28.0 40.0 96 2 0 2 20.0 62.0 18.0

2 Madhya Pradesh 98.0 2.0 16.0 2.0 74.0 8.0 98 0 2 0 10.0 82.0 8.0

3 Telangana 64.0 36.0 10.0 0.0 38.0 52.0 100 0 0 0 24.0 60.0 16.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 100.0 0.0 13.4 3.3 43.3 40.0 96.7 3.3 0 0 6.7 90.0 3.3

5 Chhattisgarh 96.0 4.0 14.0 56.0 22.0 8.0 100 0 0 0 16.0 70.0 14.0

6 Karnataka 96.3 3.7 7.5 6.5 57.0 29.0 99.1 0.9 0 0 7.5 83.1 9.4

7 Kerala 100.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 89.0 4.0 60 7 33 0 3.0 56.0 41.0

8 Tamil Nadu 93.0 7.0 40.0 0.0 57.0 3.0 97 0 3 0 10.0 43.0 47.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 100.0 0.0 46.6 0.0 36.7 16.7 96.7 3.3 0 0 46.7 50.0 3.3

10 Gujarat 90.0 10.0 3.3 0.0 83.4 13.3 97 3 0 0 30.0 70.0 0.0

11 Punjab 100.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 97.0 0 0 0 100 17.0 73.0 10.0

12 Haryana 100.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 21.4 71.4 78.6 0 0 21.4 21.4 78.6 0.0

13 West Bengal 93.3 6.7 43.3 6.7 26.7 23.3 96.7 3.3 0 0 36.7 60.0 3.3

Total 93.7 6.3 16.1 8.7 46.0 29.2 90 1.6 2 6.4 17.2 69.7 13.1


3.3.2. Educational status of victims

Table 3.4 provides the educational level of victims across sample states. Nearly 56 per cent

of the victims were educated up to matriculation, 33 per cent were illiterates and 11 per cent

were educated more than matriculation at aggregate level. The results support inverse relation

26


between level of education and suicide. The percentage of illiterates among victims was found to

be highest in MP (62%) followed by AP (53%), UP (40%), Maharashtra (40%), Karnataka (35%) and TN

(33%). Education brings more resilience to adverse socio-economic condition among the farmers,

and enhances the ability to adopt to various crop and enterprise diversification, technology

adoption, state and central schemes, etc. is crucial to handle distress situation in these states.

Table 3.4. Educational status of victims

Sl. No. States


Illiterate Primary Middle Matriculate Higher Degree Above degree

1 Maharashtra 40.0 12.0 28.0 6.0 10.0 0.0 4.0

2 Madhya Pradesh 62.0 0.0 12.0 22.0 4.0 0.0 0.0

3 Telangana 26.0 10.0 14.0 26.0 12.0 12.0 0.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 53.3 0.0 13.3 26.7 6.7 0.0 0.0

5 Chhattisgarh 22.0 54.0 10.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

6 Karnataka 34.6 11.2 18.7 19.6 12.2 3.7 0.0

7 Kerala 0.0 20.0 33.0 37.0 7.0 3.0 0.0

8 Tamil Nadu 33.0 17.0 30.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 0.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 40.0 0.0 23.3 30.0 0.0 6.7 0.0

10 Gujarat 16.7 16.7 26.6 30.0 6.7 3.3 0.0

11 Punjab 30.0 0.0 13.0 47.0 7.0 3.0 0.0

12 Haryana 28.7 21.4 14.3 21.4 7.1 7.1 0.0

13 West Bengal 23.3 30.1 10.0 33.3 0.0 3.3 0.0

Total 33.1 14.7 18.5 22.8 7.0 3.5 0.4


3.3.3. Marital status of victims

The details of average household size, type of family, location of the household and marital

status of victims are presented in Table 3.5. Majority (59%) of the victim households were nuclear

families at all India level. Andhra Pradesh (87%), Karnataka (86%), Telangana (78%), Chhattisgarh

(74%) and Uttar Pradesh (63%) witnessed relatively higher number of suicides who were among

nuclear families.

The average family size was 4.3 at all India level. This was higher in Kerala (6), Maharashtra (5),

Gujarat (5) and Chhattisgarh (5) as compared to other states. It is to note that the major farmer

suicides states reported higher family size except AP and Telangana.

The location of 89 per cent of victim households was within the village at aggregate level. This

percentage was relatively higher in West Bengal (100%), Telangana (100%), Andhra Pradesh (100%),

27


Madhya Pradesh (94%), Punjab (93%), Karnataka (91%), Uttar Pradesh (90%), and Chhattisgarh (90%).

While staying in farm was reported relatively higher in Tamil Nadu (47%), Gujarat (30%), Haryana

(14.3%), Maharashtra (14%), Kerala (11%), Chhattisgarh (10%), Uttar Pradesh (10%), Karnataka

(9.3%), Punjab (7%) and MP (6%). Emile Durkheim hypothesis of suicides among individuals who

are less integrated with the society is clearly visible only in these states.

Most of the victims were married (91%) with arrange system of marriage (96%). Victims had

married within (48%) and outside (52%) relatives in equal proportions. On an average, every

victim was survived by spouse and one or two children across sample states.

Table 3.5. Marital status of the victims

Sl. No. States

Average HHs size

Per cent to total sample of respective statesNumber

of childrenFamily type (% to total sample)

Location of the Households (% to total sample)

Marital status Type of marriage Married to whom

Joint NuclearWithin

the village

In their own farm

Married Un married

Arranged marriage

Love marriage

Married within

relatives

Married outside relatives

Sons Daughters

1 Maharashtra 5.2 72 28 86 14 92.0 8.0 98.0 2.0 40.0 60.0 1.1 0.3

2 Madhya Pradesh 4 66 34 94 6 98.0 2.0 100.0 0.0 20.4 79.6 1.2 0.5

3 Telangana 3.3 22 78 100 0 96.0 4.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 3.4 13.3 86.7 100 0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 23.3 76.7 0.5 0.5

5 Chhattisgarh 5 26 74 90 10 98.0 2.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 2.0 1.0

6 Karnataka 4.09 14.0 86 90.7 9.3 93.5 6.5 93.5 6.5 15.0 85 1.0 1.0

7 Kerala 6 41 59 89 11 81.0 19.0 100.0 0.0 15.0 85.0 2.0 2.0

8 Tamil Nadu 4 57.1 42.9 52.9 47.1 97.0 3.0 80.0 20.0 50.0 50.0 2.0 2.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 4.3 36.7 63.3 90 10 80.0 20.0 93.3 6.7 67.0 33 0.8 0.7

10 Gujarat 5.1 70 30 70 30 80.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 1.0 0.4

11 Punjab 4.5 50 50 93 7 80.0 20.0 100.0 0.0 75.0 25.0 0.7 0.0

12 Haryana 3.2 85.7 14.3 85.7 14.3 78.60 21.4 78.6 21.4 28.6 71.4 0.8 0.8

13 West Bengal 3.8 56.7 43.3 100 0 86.70 13.3 96.7 3.3 13.3 86.7 0.9 0.3

Total 4.3 40.9 59.1 89 11 91.3 8.7 96.2 3.8 47.9 52.1 1.2 0.8


3.3.4. Method and place of suicide

Table 3.6 provides the details of method adopted for suicide and place of suicide. Poison

consumption and hanging were the two common methods used by victim to commit suicide.

Majority of the victims in Andhra Pradesh (77%), Punjab (73%) Madhya Pradesh (72%), Tamil Nadu

(70%), Gujarat (67%), and West Bengal (53%) have committed suicide by poison/plant protection

chemicals (PPC) consumption. While the victims in Chhattisgarh (78%), Kerala (67%), UP (67%),

Haryana (57%) and Maharashtra (52%) resorted to suicide by hanging. The house and farm were

the two main places where victims committed suicides in all the states. These places together

constituted 93 per cent at aggregate level.

28


Table 3.6. Method and place of suicides

Sl. No.

States


Method adopted Place of suicide

Poison consumption Hanging

Other method like Jumping into river / well, current shock, Railway track etc.

House FarmOther places like hotel /

lodge

1 Maharashtra 38.0 52.0 10.0 38.0 54.0 8.0

2 Madhya Pradesh 72.0 24.0 4.0 50.0 40.0 10.0

3 Telangana 40.0 40.0 20.0 80.0 18.0 2.0

4 Andhra Pradesh 76.7 23.3 0.0 66.7 23.3 10.0

5 Chhattisgarh 20.0 78.0 2.0 44.0 54.0 2.0

6 Karnataka 41.0 47.7 11.3 65.0 25.0 10.0

7 Kerala 30.0 67.0 3.0 81.0 19.0 0.0

8 Tamil Nadu 70.0 23.0 7.0 47.0 50.0 3.0

9 Uttar Pradesh 30.0 66.7 3.3 46.7 43.3 10.0

10 Gujarat 67.0 17.0 16.0 46.4 47.0 6.6

11 Punjab 73.0 10.0 17.0 43.0 40.0 17.0

12 Haryana 42.9 57.1 0.0 28.6 71.4 0.0

13 West Bengal 53.3 40.0 6.7 76.6 16.7 6.7

Total 48.1 43.2 8.7 56.6 36.2 7.2


3.4. Characteristics of operational holdings

Particulars of operational holdings of victim households are presented in Table 3.7 and Figure

3.1. The average operational land holding of victim HHs was 3.4 acres, of which, 56 per cent

was irrigated, with groundwater (70%) being the major source of irrigation. Groundwater was

the major source of irrigation in UP (100%), Haryana (100%), Kerala (97%), West Bengal (91%),

Telangana (91%), Gujarat (85%) and Maharashtra (80%). The highest land holding was found in

Haryana (18 acres) followed by 6.6 acres in Punjab, 6 acres in Gujarat, 4.1 acres in AP and four

acres in Maharashtra whereas the least operational land was found in West Bengal (1.2 acres).

It is to further note that victim HHs in Kerala, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal had

only irrigated land. The number of sample victims as a per cent to total victims in each of the

category and the per cent of area operated by them to total operated area of all the victim HHs

can be seen from the Figure 3.1. Nearly 50 per cent of the marginal farmers have operated 28 per

cent of land and 26 per cent of small farmers operated 28 per cent of land, 8 per cent of large

29


farmers operated 17 per cent of land and 16 per cent of medium farmers operated 27 per cent

of land. The above results indicate inequity in distribution of land which was relatively higher in

Telangana, AP, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, TN, UP, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana.

Table 3.7. Details of operational holdings of victim households

Sl. No.

States% of holding to total operated land # Number of HHs as a % to total no. of victim HHs

Average operated holding size per victim HH (Acres)

Marginal Small Medium Large Marginal Small Medium Large irrigatedun

irrigatedTotal

1 Maharashtra 40.0 42.0 10.0 8.0 40.0 36.0 18.0 6.0 0.5 3.5 4.0

2 MP 70.0 12.0 14.0 4.0 32.0 15.0 33.0 20.0 2.3 0.9 3.2

3 Telangana 37.9 52.1 10.0 0.0 58.0 38.0 4.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 2.2

4 AP 16.5 31.1 22.4 30.0 43.4 33.3 13.3 10.0 2.8 1.3 4.1

5 Chhattisgarh 29.4 18.9 12.6 39.1 76.0 14.0 6.0 4.0 0.6 3.0 3.6

6 Karnataka 19.6 26.0 45.7 8.7 59.7 20.6 17.8 1.9 1.1 1.8 2.9

7 Kerala 25.0 55.0 20.0 0.0 48.0 45.0 7.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1

8 TN 20.0 28.0 52.0 0.0 50.0 26.0 24.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.6

9 UP 57.1 28.6 14.3 0.0 83.4 13.3 3.3 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4

10 Gujarat 7.0 16.0 43.0 34.0 27.0 27.0 33.0 13.0 2.6 3.3 5.9

11 Punjab 7.2 13.3 20.0 59.5 33.0 27.0 17.0 23.0 6.6 0.0 6.6

12 Haryana* 0.0 1.5 13.1 85.4 0.0 14.3 28.6 57.1 17.9 0.0 17.9

13 WB 27 58.6 14.4 0.0 76.7 20.0 3.3 0.0 1.1 0.1 1.2

Total 28.2 28.1 27.0 16.7 50.3 25.9 15.9 7.9 1.9 1.5 3.4


Note: * Haryana state average operational land holding information is excluded for estimation of average operational holding at aggregate level; # Marginal: 0.1 to 2.5 acre; Small: 2.51 to 5 acre; Medium: 5.1 to 10 acre

Figure 3.1. Area operated by different category of victim HHs

28.2

28.1

27.0

16.7

49.824.9

15.87.3

Marginal Small Medium Large

% of operatedarea to total

operated area

% of farmers to total

30


3.5. Sources of Irrigation

Irrigation plays a crucial role for sustaining farm incomes and details on sources of irrigation

across sample states is presented in Table 3.8. Around 56 per cent of the net operated area (1.9

acres per HHs) at aggregate level was irrigated. Ground water accounted for 70 per cent of the

total irrigated area. Groundwater was the only source of irrigation among victim households of

Uttar Pradesh and Haryana. Majority of the area of victim households of Punjab (68%) and Tamil

Nadu (64%) were dependent on surface water. In Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, the area

irrigated by ground water and surface water was more or less the same. The victim households

mentioned that the recharge capacity of tube well was too low and the surface water source goes

dry in the mid of the crop season, resulting in crop failure as they could not get water at crucial

stages of the crop growth.

Table 3.8. Source-wise distribution of irrigated area

Sl. No.

States

Area irrigated per HH (Acres)

Per cent of irrigated to total

operated area per HH

Per cent of area irrigated by ground water (open well and tube well) to the total irrigated area

per HH

Per cent of area irrigated by surface

water (open well and tube well) to the total irrigated area per HH

1 Maharashtra 0.50 12.50 80.00 20.00

2 Madhya Pradesh 2.30 71.88 52.17 47.83

3 Telangana 1.10 50.00 90.91 9.09

4 Andhra Pradesh 2.80 68.29 53.57 46.43

5 Chhattisgarh 0.60 16.67 66.67 33.33

6 Karnataka 1.10 37.93 63.64 36.36

7 Kerala 3.10 100.00 96.77 3.23

8 Tamil Nadu 3.60 100.00 36.11 63.89

9 Uttar Pradesh 1.40 100.00 100.00 0.00

10 Gujarat 2.60 44.07 84.62 15.38

11 Punjab 6.60 100.00 31.82 68.18

12 Haryana* 17.90 100.00 100.00 0.00

13 West Bengal 1.10 91.67 90.91 9.09

Total 1.90 55.88 69.57 30.43


Note: *Operated area of Haryana was found to be very high as compared to other states and hence excluded for estimation of average operated area at aggregate level.

31


3.6. Cropping pattern and net returns

There is close relation between cropping pattern and availability of irrigation. At aggregate level,

Kharif covered 62 per cent and Rabi covered 28 per cent of the gross operated area. Remaining

10 per cent of the operated area was under summer and other perennial/ratoon crops like fruits,

sugarcane, coffee, etc. Kharif cultivation was prevalent in all the 13 states, while Rabi and

summer cultivation was practiced only in few states.

Cropping pattern in most of the states was confined to Kharif which reflect the dependence on

rainfall by the victim HHs. Victim HHs of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Kerala and Haryana reported

40 to 50 per cent of operated area under Rabi. Summer cultivation was reported only in Tamil

Nadu and West Bengal which constituted one-third of total operated area. Millets was the main

summer crop reported by victim households of Tamil Nadu, whereas paddy and chilly were

reported in West Bengal.

Cropping pattern further revealed that the victim households were cultivating paddy, wheat,

maize, jowar and bajra among cereal crops. Important pulse crops were redgram, blackgram and

greengram. Tobacco, sugarcane, coffee and ginger were the major commercial crops grown by

victim HHs. Paddy was also grown during summer in West Bengal. In addition to these crops, there

were instances of victim HHs cultivating fruits and vegetables. The share of each crop category

to the total cropped area at aggregate level is provided in Figure 3.2. Cereals constituted 57 per

cent of the total cropped area. This was followed by commercial crops (22%) and oil seeds (10%).

Remaining area of 11 per cent was under pulses, fruits, vegetables and fodder crops.

Figure 3.2. Percentage of operated area by crop categories

Cereals , 57.29Pulses, 5.32

Oil seeds, 10.12

Cash crops, 21.61

Vegetables, 1.32

Fruits, 1.89 Fodder, 2.45

32


The victim HHs had grown about 23 different crops during 2015-16 period. Cereals, pulses and

commercial crops were prominent among them, which constituted 80 per cent of the gross

operated area considering eight states. Paddy was cultivated in all the states except Maharashtra.

Wheat was a popular crop among victim households of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana and

Uttar Pradesh, which occupied 50 per cent, 43 percent, 42 per cent and 28 per cent of total

operated area, respectively. Negligible area under wheat was reported in Maharashtra, Karnataka

and Chhattisgarh.

Cotton emerged as an important commercial crop of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Punjab

and Haryana, which constituted around 80 per cent of the total operated area. Tobacco was

cultivated only by victim HHs in Karnataka. It is to note that coffee along with pepper was an

important crop grown in Kerala.

The details of crops grown by the victim households are provided in Table 3.9. Among the

various crops grown, the highest net returns per acre was realized from cultivation of pepper

(Rs.75000), followed by ginger (Rs.71284), fruits (Rs.70334), groundnut (Rs.44321), and mulberry

(Rs.38227). The highest expenditure on cultivation was incurred on Pepper (Rs.159375), followed

by coffee (Rs.83636), and Ginger (Rs.77246). Relatively lower income per acre was registered

from blackgram (Rs.12327), sugarcane (Rs.11185), greengram (Rs.6332), maize (Rs.6197), coffee

(Rs.5060), redgram (Rs.2649), and jowar (Rs.431). It is quite significant to note that loss was

incurred from the cultivation of tobacco (Rs.12016/acre), ragi (Rs.741/acre), soybean (Rs.301/

acre) and bajra (Rs.251/acre).

At aggregate level, the highest net return per acre was derived from cultivation of fruits and

vegetables (Rs.100172/acre), followed by oil seeds (Rs.71392/acre). Loss was incurred from the

cultivation of oil seeds in Maharashtra (Rs.3536/acre). Similarly loss was also observed in the

cultivation of fruits and vegetables in Karnataka (Rs.76343/acre) and Telangana (Rs.5750/acre).

At the time of survey, the victim HHs of Karnataka have not realized yield from fruit crops and

hence loss was reflected under fruits and vegetable group. Though most of the states have

exhibited profits, the returns are not encouraging even after ignoring actual irrigation cost and

interest on fixed and working capital. The main reasons for low returns or loss are due to partial

failure or complete failure of the crops due to attack of pest and diseases; lack of irrigation or

failure of rain; drop in price immediately after harvest; low level of productivity and high cost of

inputs as opined by the victim HHs. More details on state-wise net profits derived from different

crops can be seen in Table 3.10.

33


Table 3.9. Crops cultivated and net returns realized by victim households

Crop group Crop No. of HH cultivated

Area cultivated

per HH (Acres)

Yield per acre (in Qtls.)

Average price

received (per Qtl.)

Gross value of returns

(per acre in Rs.)

Cost of Cultivation (per acre in

Rs.)

Net returns

(per acre in Rs.)

Net returns

(per HH in Rs.)

Cereals

Paddy 284 2.78 19.15 2047 42018 12092 29926 83194Jowar 40 2.28 2.31 1992 5305 4866 439 1001Maize 48 2.12 11.58 1256 12688 6491 6197 13138Bajra 11 1.18 4.63 1139 5487 5738 -251 -296Wheat 113 4.19 21.73 1473 33665 9494 24171 101276Barley 1 5.00 35.00 1400 49000 18000 31000 155000Ragi 12 1.20 3.33 598 1993 2734 -741 -889

PulsesRed gram 43 1.25 2.13 3552 11457 8808 2649 3311Black gram 13 0.65 3.72 4600 16995 4668 12327 8013Green gram 34 2.24 2.17 5173 11969 5637 6332 14184

Oil SeedsGroundnut 41 3.40 13.58 5340 55105 10784 44321 150691Sesame 8 3.51 11.85 4056 38092 10720 27372 96076Soy bean 52 1.84 2.35 3306 7741 8042 -301 -554

Vegetables Vegetables 34 1.01 12.47 4100 48463 18625 29838 30136Fruits Fruits 21 2.34 13.16 4800 85976 15642 70334 164582

Commercial crops

Cotton 108 3.82 7.71 4170 31736 13240 18496 70655Pepper 1 1.28 4.69 50000 234375 159375 75000 96000Ginger 9 1.91 74.30 2077 148530 77246 71284 136152Sugar cane 45 1.96 109.18 1044 24383 13198 11185 21923Tobacco 20 1.88 2.13 3237 6887 18903 -12016 -22590Coffee 2 1.38 11.59 7650 88696 83636 5060 6983Mulberry 4 0.45 40.00 1789 71560 33333 38227 17202

Others Fodder 59 1.08 144.38 392 40992 4531 36461 39378Total 1003 4.92 20.93 0 34493 11440 23053 113421


Note: Haryana was excluded while computing net operated area. But while calculating gross cropped area Haryana is included. Hence, the gross cropped area and net operated area may not tally.

Table 3.10. State-wise net profit from different crops

Sl. No. States

Rs. per Acre

Paddy Wheat Other cereals Pulses Oil seeds Fruits &

vegetables CottonOther

commercial crops

Total

1 Maharashtra 0 -4548 -11005 1490 -3536 0 -678 0 -1812

2 MP 8834 6111 0 21048 6714 2977 0 0 7248

3 Telangana 3071 0 3173 0 0 -5750 8988 0 6226

4 AP 37540 0 17143 53074 11724 15563 4301 0 20694

5 Chhattisgarh 10418 8588 3950 10230 0 0 0 0 10406

6 Karnataka 3515 100 1989 -8025 6486 -76343 4002 33201 -6

7 Kerala 38957 0 0 0 0 97109 0 240101 74243

8 TN 59983 0 3830 6140 44531 0 29145 10655 36505

9 UP 13161 8836 2603 8073 8287 0 0 15888 11995

10 Gujarat 85601 0 45285 15942 71362 83334 34656 0 54473

11 Punjab 20768 15693 0 0 0 5522 2645 0 16251

12 Haryana 47498 44120 40000 0 36277 9300 47725 3600 43536

13 WB 19180 0 0 0 0 167670 0 0 27421

Total 29926 24171 36644 21308 71392 100172 18496 188740 23053


34


Victim households complained about non-availability of quality inputs like seeds, fertilizers and

plant protection chemicals at right time and at reasonable prices. These are conspicuously visible

reasons. Ignorance about periodic soil testing among the farming community, incorrect dosage

and method of application of pesticides and fertilizers, unorganized marketing structures, dearth

of storage houses are important problems in crop cultivation. In many states, farmers tried to

manage crop production with the limited funds available with them, which ultimately results in

low returns.

Figure 3.3 presents the costs and returns across sample states. Relatively lower cost and returns

was realized in Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Maharashtra. Cost and

value of production was seen to be almost same in Karnataka, whereas cost (Rs.9,156/acre) was

higher than the returns (Rs.7,344/acre) in Maharashtra. Kerala (Rs.1,03,856), Gujarat (Rs.63,938),

Haryana (Rs.58,903), TN (Rs.47,677), WB (Rs.37,762), AP (Rs.36,777), Punjab (Rs.24,216) and UP

(Rs.23,323) have registered relatively higher returns per acre.

It can be summarized from analysis that many of the victim households regard agriculture as a

non-remunerative and many of them have discontinued cultivation after death of victim. Many

studies highlighted debt as the cause of farmer suicide. But in reality, debt in itself is not the

cause of farmer suicide. The real cause is the low income from farming. The current study

analysed status of crop cultivation and economic condition only for one year. However, farmers

Figure 3.3. State-wise costs and returns from crop cultivation

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Amou

nt in

Rs.

per

acr

e Returns Cost

35


have been exposed to even pathetic situation in the previous years as opined by the victim HHs

across states. Thus, agrarian distress is not linked to only one year and one reason, but linked to

previous years and many reasons.

3.7. Sources of income and expenditure

It can be seen from the Table 3.11 that expenditure exceeded income in Maharashtra, Gujarat,

Telangana and West Bengal. The average income realized per HH was Rs.73,142, of which, 72

per cent was derived from agriculture and allied activities. The average expenditure incurred

was Rs.59,868, of which, 50 per cent was spent on food and remaining on non-food items.

Overall, Rs.13,274 was the surplus amount realized after accounting for expenditure which

is just above poverty line income. The deficit was seen in Gujarat (Rs.78,823), Maharashtra

(Rs.63,787), Telangana (Rs.2,426) and West Bengal (Rs.2,466). While surplus was relatively higher

in Haryana (Rs.336500) and Kerala (Rs.2,06,705). It is to note that only Maharashtra has incurred

loss of Rs.11,526 from agriculture and allied activities which is reflected in terms of highest

number suicides during 2015-16. The income and expenditure across states can be clearly seen in

Figure 3.4. A general discussion with the farmers of villages, other than the victim households,

reconfirmed that farmers are not inclined to continue agriculture. It was also mentioned that

those farmers who had the opportunity to get employed in other than agriculture sectors already

left agriculture and took-up other jobs. The famers who could not get jobs were either less

educated or over aged to get jobs or both.

Figure 3.4. State-wise income and expenditure of victim households

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Amou

nt in

Rs.

Income Expenditure

36


Tabl

e 3.

11.

Stat

e-w

ise

inco

me

and

expe

ndit

ure

Sl.

No.

Sour

ceR

s. p

er H

H

Mah

aras

htra

MP

Tela

ngan

aA

PC

hhat

tisga

rhK

arna

taka

Ker

ala

TNU

PG

ujar

atPu

njab

Har

yana

WB

Tota

l

1Ag

ricult

ural

and A

llied

272

8.136

5.88

10.1

211

14.2

311

.54

9.51

2.6

2Ot

hers

(Sala

ry /

Pens

ion / S

mall

busin

ess

340

10.1

447.0

911

.422

615

.21

3.92

4.80

0.0

3To

tal in

come

(A)

324

9.611

318

.111

13.9

162

10.9

27.7

614

.32

5.3

4Ex

pens

e inc

urre

d on

Food

344

10.2

125

20.0

1519

.023

715

.93

11.5

49.5

410

.5

5Ex

pens

es on

Non

food

293

8.759

9.49

11.4

130

8.71

3.96

14.3

615

.8

6To

tal ex

pend

iture

(B)

321

9.571

11.3

911

.411

07.4

27.7

12.4

410

.5

7Su

rplus

/ Defi

cit

(+ / -

) A- B

240

7.149

7.83

3.810

77.2

27.7

511

.92

5.4

Sour

ce:

Prim

ary

surv

ey (

2015

-16)

37


3.8. Details of credit

A fair majority of farming community consists of marginal and small farmers who starve for

funds to take up cultivation activities. Under such situations, they approach credit institutions

to avail loan. But during the events of crop failure or price crash, repaying the amount borrowed

will not be possible. Recurrence of rain failure, occurrence of pest and diseases, high cost of

inputs, unavailability of agricultural inputs at right time and low price drives farmers to debt-

trap situation. Indebtedness has been identified as a major reason for farmer suicides in the

Radhakrishna Committee report (2007) and the study by Deshpande (2002).

In order to comprehend the relation between credit and farmer suicides, credit details of

the sample victim households were collected. Different sources of the credit raised by victim

households are mainly grouped as institutional and non-institutional. The purpose for which

the loan was availed was grouped in to farming and non-farming. The aggregate details of the

institutional and non-institutional credit availed by the victim households for farming and non-

farming purposes is presented in Table 3.12. It can be clearly seen in the table that relatively

higher number of victim HHs have borrowed from non-institutional sources, which is in-line with

the findings of Devadas and Sunil (2014).

Table 3.12. Details of credit

Source

Total for entire sample size Farming purpose Non- Farming purpose

Outstanding Amt. in Rs. per victim

HH

Per cent of amount

outstanding to total credit availed

No. of victim

HHs as a % to total sample

Amt. in Rs. per

borrowing HH

No. of victim HHs (as a % to borrowing

HHs)

Amt. in Rs. per HH of those who borrowed

for farming purpose

No. of victim HHs (as a % to borrowing

HHs)

Amt. in Rs. per HH of those who borrowed for non- farming purpose

1. Institutional

Cooperative banks 32.77 110828 95.38 111870 4.62 89346 76646 69.16

Commercial banks 31.44 200093 87.95 196146 12.05 228907 170100 85.01

Others 5.11 166548 88.89 180345 11.11 56171 150875 90.59

Total institutional - 155425 91.53 153505 8.47 176175 124508 80.11

2. Non-Institutional

Landlords 8.71 73602 71.74 64838 28.26 95851 79744 108.34

Local money lenders 35.80 206174 66.14 196589 33.86 224895 141677 68.72

Traders and commission agents

10.04 205332 60.38 147403 39.62 293603 333964 162.65

Relatives and friends 18.37 130021 48.45 108830 51.55 149941 121636 93.55

Others 0.95 139320 40.00 235800 60.00 75000 129600 93.02

Total Non-institutional - 170625 61.28 154882 38.72 195543 155364 91.06

Total - 163266 - 154078 - 192244 140426 86.01


38


The average amount borrowed per HH was Rs.1.63 lakh. Total institutional borrowing per HH was

Rs.1.55 lakh and non-institutional borrowing was Rs.1.70 lakh. The amount utilized for farming

and non-farming purpose by HHs was Rs.1.54 lakh and Rs.1.92 lakh respectively. A majority of

the borrowers of institutional source utilized the amount borrowed for farming purpose. Per

cent of amount outstanding to the total credit availed was highest in borrowings from traders

and commission agents (163%), followed by landlords (108%), relatives and friends (94%), and

commercial banks (85%). The overall outstanding amount was to the extent of 86 per cent of the

total credit. It can be seen that the outstanding amount has exceeded the borrowed amount in

certain cases. This is due to the accumulation of loan over a period of time due to high interest

rates.

Figure 3.5 depicts the proportion of credit availed from different sources by the victim households.

Among all the sources, a major portion (32%) of credit was availed from moneylenders, followed

by commercial bank (27%), cooperative banks (16%), traders and commission agents (9%), and

relatives and friends (10%).

The state-wise per cent of farmers to total sample who had availed loan from institutional source

can be seen from Figure 3.6. Co-operative and commercial banks were the most preferred

institutional sources for loan. However, there were instances of victim households in Karnataka,

Maharashtra and Kerala who had borrowed from other institutional sources like Primary Land

Development Bank (PLDB) and Self Help Groups (SHGs). Farmers tend to borrow from institutional

sources due to varied reasons, firstly, the interest rate charged by institutional sources was

Figure 3.5. Source-wise credit (in per cent)

Co-op. Society/bank, 15.53

Commercial bank incl. RRBs, 26.91

Others (Institutional), 3.64Landlord, 2.74

Money lenders, 31.58

Traders and commission agents,

8.82Relatives and friends, 10.22

Others (Non-institutional), 0.56

39


significantly lower than the non-institutional sources; secondly, the institutional lenders are not

as rude as non-institutional lenders when it comes to recovery of loan; thirdly, the institutional

lenders are more considerate to farmers when the crop fails or when the farmers have some

genuine problems for repaying periodic installments. Therefore, the victim households of all the

states have availed loans from institutional sources. It is interesting to note that in Chhattisgarh,

which is one of the major suicide prone states of the country, victim HHs had availed institutional

credit only to an extent of four per cent of the total victim HHs. In spite of Chhattisgarh being

one of the prominent suicide prone states, the extent of borrowing from institutional and non-

institutional sources was only 8 per cent of the total credit.

It must be mentioned that the victims turned to non-institutional sources only when they could

not avail loan from institutional sources. The prominent reasons for their inability to avail

institutional credit were: few farmers were defaulters of the loans they had previously availed;

the farmers could not produce necessary documents; the interest charged by local money

lenders was almost 3-4 times higher as compared to institutional lenders. Hence, the victims had

approached local money lenders as a last resort or after exhausting other institutional sources.

Even within non-institutional sources, their first choice was friends and relatives, which was

prominent in Telangana (62%), Maharashtra (46%), Punjab (36%), and AP (33%). Local money

lenders, traders and commission agents were the other non-institutional sources. However,

victims had not borrowed from traders and commission agents in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh,

MP, Karnataka, and UP and local moneylenders in MP, UP, and Gujarat. Highest borrowing from

commission agents was reported in Punjab (67%), whereas moneylenders were the major source

of finance in Karnataka (83%), Telangana (68%), AP (60%), Kerala (52%), TN (40%), and WB (40%).

Figure 3.6. State-wise institutional loans availed by victim households

38

6

36

20

0

59

89

63

713

37

147

2010

36

63

4

49

26 30 27

5360

07

0102030405060708090

100

Per

cent

to

tota

l Sam

ple

Co-operative Banks Commercial Banks

40


It can be seen from the Figure 3.7 that the per cent of farmers who took loan from non-institutional

sources is much lower in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh which are classified as

the major farmer suicide prone states of the nation. The higher dependence of farmers on money

lenders was found to be highest in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Telangana.

State-wise utilization of loan for farming and non-farming purpose is depicted in the Figure 3.8.

It could be seen from the figure that victims of Haryana had utilized all the loan amount availed

for farming purpose. Diversion of loan amount availed for non-farming purpose was higher in

Punjab, Maharashtra, AP, Karnataka, Kerala, TN, and WB.

This provides the hint that farmers are already in debt trap in these states. Normally the farmers

avoid borrowing from non-institutional sources especially from money lenders. Because, the

money lenders not only charge very high rate of interest but also pester the borrowers beyond

certain limits for recovery. As such, the farmers avoid money lenders unless and until they

need money very badly. Few farmers borrowed money from private money lenders for stop gap

arrangements or for personal expenses. The worst debt trap situation is borrowing from one

source to pay interest arrears at another source. Under such situations the farmers keep rotating

debt from one source to other. When they exhaust all sources they are left with no option but to

commit suicide. Thus, very meticulous observation of the study is that many of the victims did

not commit suicide because they had loan, they committed suicide when they could not raise

loan from any source for rotation accompanied with harsh behavior of moneylenders.

Figure 3.7. State-wise non-institutional loans availed by victim households

0102030405060708090

Per c

ent t

o to

tal s

ampl

e

Money Lenders Landlords Traders and Commission Agents Relatives and Friends

41


Diversion of credit to non-farming purpose out of the credit taken for farming purpose is also a

reason for mounting debts of farmers. The results at aggregate level revealed that 8 per cent of the

institutional borrowers had diverted institutional credit to non-farming or for personal purposes.

With respect to non-institutional borrowers, 39 per cent of the non-institutional borrowers had

deviated credit to non-farming purposes. But, in its true perspective, the fact is that 61 per cent

of the victim HHs had to raise credit from non-institutional sources for farming purposes. In a

way, the gap between credit requirement the victims had and the credit available to them can

be measured. Because, generally the non-institutional credit, at higher interest rate, would be

availed for personal purposes.

State-wise details of credit availed is presented in Table 3.13. Among states, relatively higher

amount of borrowing was utilized for farming purpose in Haryana (Rs.497459), Punjab (Rs.280153)

and Karnataka (Rs. 244949). It is to note that none of the HHs in MP and Chhattisgarh had

borrowed from non-institutional sources for farming purpose. The highest borrowing for non-

farming purpose was seen in Punjab (Rs.444577) followed by Karnataka (Rs.257870) and Kerala

(Rs.254967).

It can be seen that all the institutional borrowers in Telangana, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Haryana

had utilized the credit for farming purpose. At aggregate level, 76 per cent of the HHs had

utilized the overall credit borrowed for farming purpose with relatively higher per cent of such

borrowers in Haryana (100%), Gujarat (85%), AP (84%), Karnataka (82%), Telangana (79%), Kerala

(76%) and Maharashtra (72%).

Figure 3.8. State-wise quantum of credit availed by victim households

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Amou

nt in

Rs.

per

bor

row

ing

HH

Loan utilised for farming purposes Loan utilised for non-farming purpose

42


Table 3.13 also provides insights of the outstanding amount across states. Outstanding amount

at aggregate level was 86 per cent. Highest per cent of outstanding amount was in Haryana

(351%), followed by Telangana (157%), Punjab (119%), AP (93%), TN (87%), and UP (80%). State-

wise comparison of credit availed and outstanding is given in Figure 3.9. It is quite surprising

to note that the victim HHs of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh had availed lower credit as


Figure 3.9. State-wise comparison of credit availed and outstanding

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

900000

1000000

Amou

nt in

Rs.

Per

HH

Per HH Credit Availed Per HH Credit Outstanding

Field visit - Andhra Pradesh

43


Tabl

e 3.

13.

Det

ails

of

cred

it a

vaile

d fr

om in

stit

utio

nal s

ourc

es

Sl.

No.

Stat

es

Farm

ing

purp

ose

(per

HH

to

resp

ecti

ve b

orro

wer

s)N

on-f

arm

ing

purp

ose

(per

HH

to

resp

ecti

ve b

orro

wer

s)U

tilis

atio

n of

the

cre

dit

Out

stan

ding

am

ount

as

a pe

r ce

nt

to t

otal

bo

rrow

ed

amou

nt.

Inst

itut

iona

lN

on-

Inst

itut

iona

lTo

tal

Inst

itut

iona

lN

on-

Inst

itut

iona

lTo

tal

Per

cent

of

HH

who

use

d in

stit

utio

nal

cred

it f

or

farm

ing

purp

ose

out

of t

otal

in

stit

utio

nal

borr

ower

s

Per

cent

of

HH

who

use

d in

stit

utio

nal

cred

it f

or n

on-

farm

ing

purp

ose

out

of t

otal

in

stit

utio

nal

borr

ower

s

Per

cent

of

HH

who

use

d no

n-in

stit

utio

nal

cred

it f

or

farm

ing

purp

ose

out

of t

otal

no

n-in

stit

utio

nal

borr

ower

s

Per

cent

of

HH

w

ho u

sed

non-

inst

itut

iona

l cre

dit

for

non-

farm

ing

purp

ose

out

of t

otal

no

n-in

stit

utio

nal

borr

ower

s

Ove

rall

Per

cent

of

HH

w

ho u

sed

cred

it f

or

farm

ing

out

of t

otal

bo

rrow

ers

Per

cent

of

HH

who

use

d fo

r no

n-fa

rmin

g ou

t of

bor

row

ers

1M

ahar

asht

ra67

946

1821

4795

958

3783

317

2037

1528

6593

.02

6.98

41.9

458

.06

71.6

228

.38

71.0

6

2M

adhy

a

Prad

esh

1490

900

1490

9029

917

6166

745

792

62.5

037

.50

0.00

100.

0045

.45

54.5

528

.03

3Te

lang

ana

1697

953

816

4153

70

2795

927

959

100.

000.

0072

.38

27.6

279

.72

20.2

815

7.32

4An

dhra

Prad

esh

8466

412

1936

1068

9715

0045

2188

8020

6364

92.0

08.

0079

.07

20.9

383

.82

16.1

893

.43

5Ch

hatt

isga

rh95

000

095

000

060

000

6000

010

0.00

0.00

0.00

100.

0050

.00

50.0

031

.29

6Ka

rnat

aka

2201

8129

9988

2449

4972

678

2790

3825

7873

96.7

73.

2360

.67

39.3

381

.69

18.3

164

.18

7Ke

rala

1931

5919

7860

1948

3716

4857

3322

0425

4967

81.8

218

.18

68.1

831

.82

76.3

623

.64

67.2

5

8Ta

mil

Nad

u35

352

1226

9474

171

1654

7315

1725

1578

3571

.43

28.5

761

.54

38.4

666

.67

33.3

387

.40

9U

ttar

Pra

desh

5239

519

500

4581

610

0013

3000

053

338

80.0

020

.00

33.3

366

.67

62.5

037

.50

79.6

7

10G

ujar

at15

9320

2121

0016

4119

013

3125

1331

2510

0.00

0.00

33.3

366

.67

84.6

215

.38

71.6

4

11Pu

njab

2971

6224

7350

2801

5379

7074

4110

0644

4577

93.1

06.

9040

.00

60.0

064

.06

35.9

411

9.66

12H

arya

na49

9653

4952

6449

7459

00

010

0.00

0.00

100.

000.

0010

0.00

0.00

351.

05

13W

est

Beng

al68

701

3327

540

866

5602

8050

226

1012

3175

.00

25.0

055

.00

45.0

058

.33

41.6

727

.46

Tota

l15

3505

1548

8215

4078

1761

7519

5543

1922

4491

.53

8.47

61.2

838

.72

75.9

324

.07

86.0

1

Sour

ce:

Prim

ary

surv

ey (

2015

-16)

Not

e: P

er H

H is

cal

cula

ted

by d

ivid

ing

sum

of b

orro

wed

am

ount

by

HH

who

had

act

ually

ava

iled

loan

for e

ach

of th

e gr

oup.

Few

HH

had

take

n lo

an fr

om in

stitu

tiona

l and

non

-inst

itutio

nal s

ourc

es. H

ence

, the

to

tal o

f ins

titut

iona

l and

non

-inst

itutio

nal w

ill n

ot b

e eq

ual t

o to

tal s

ampl

e si

ze.

44


Chapter IV : CAUSES AND IMPACT OF FARMER SUICIDES

This chapter presents the symptoms observed by family members before the suicides, social/

farming/indebted-related causes of suicides and its impact on victim HHs after committing suicide.

Additionally, suggestions to prevent suicides in future as opined by victim HHs are presented.

4.1. Symptoms of suicides noticed by the victim households

The person who is about to commit suicide may provide some clues about his/her inclination to commit suicide. During the last days before the suicide, the victim might gradually become reclusive, may consume food irregularly and might not sleep adequately. The victim might exhibit several other symptoms through behavioural changes like feeling agitated or anxious, mood swings and rage may also be observed. However, these psychological and social changes may not be displayed by all those who commit suicide. The symptoms may not be very conspicuous in the case of those suicides which are very spontaneous. With these limitations, an attempt was made to enquire the respondents if they had any hint about the possibility of victim committing suicide. The questions were framed to know the behaviour during the last few days of the victim in terms of their mingling with society, regularity in food consumption and adequacy of sleep. Table 4.1 presents the symptoms exhibited by

victims which was observed by family members in sample states.

Table 4.1. Symptoms noticed by victim HHs prior to suicide

Sl. No. States

Per cent of victim HHs who said ‘Yes’ to the total sample

Was the victim mingling with his/

her own family member?

Was the victim mingling with his/her own community?

Was the victim mingling with his/her neighbouring

households/ friends?

Was the victim consuming food

regularly?

Was the victim sleeping

adequately during nights?

1 Maharashtra 44.00 43.00 42.00 43.00 42.00

2 Madhya Pradesh 70.00 70.00 74.00 76.00 72.00

3 Telangana 94.00 96.00 88.00 80.00 84.00

4 Andhra Pradesh 96.67 96.67 90.00 76.67 70.00

5 Chhattisgarh 64.00 64.00 68.00 68.00 74.00

6 Karnataka 94.39 92.52 91.59 90.65 88.79

7 Kerala 96.00 81.00 70.00 78.00 78.00

8 Tamil Nadu 70.00 73.00 73.00 80.00 87.00

9 Uttar Pradesh 90.00 73.33 30.00 43.33 46.67

10 Gujarat 93.00 93.00 93.00 70.00 60.00

11 Punjab 80.00 77.00 77.00 73.00 60.00

12 Haryana 100.00 92.90 100.00 92.90 92.90

13 West Bengal 70.00 53.00 46.70 60.00 26.70

Total 80.84 77.68 73.83 73.00 70.11


45


It can be seen from the Table 4.1 that inadequate sleeping habits was reported by 30 per cent of

the victim HHs, followed by irregular food consumption (27%), not mingled with the neighbours/

family and friends (26%), not mingled with the community (22%) and not mingled with the family

members (19%). It is strange to note that symptoms of suicide were relatively visible only in a few

states like Maharashtra, MP, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu and WB. The victims in these states mingled

lesser with the family, community, neighbours and friends, prior to suicide. The symptoms of

suicides were not seen in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat and Haryana. Per cent

of victim HHs who observed the symptom of changes in mingling attitude of victim farmers across

states can be clearly seen in Figure 4.1.

Nearly 93 per cent in Haryana and 91 per cent of the victims of Karnataka consumed food

regularly. Nearly the same per cent of victims of these two states did not have any noticeable

change in their sleeping habits. They were sleeping adequately as per the observations of their

family members. Thus, only 10 per cent of victims of Karnataka and Haryana provided some hint

about the possibility of committing suicide through irregularities in food consumption and their

sleeping inadequacy. Nearly 20 per cent of victim HHs of Tamil Nadu and Telangana reported

that the victims were not consuming food regularly. The per cent of victim households who said

that the victim was not sleeping adequately was 13 per cent in Tamil Nadu and 16 per cent in

Telangana. The highest number of victim HHs who indicated that the victims were not consuming

food regularly and were not sleeping adequately was noticed in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.

These symptoms are indicated in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.1. Per cent of victim HHs who answered ‘Yes’ to the symptoms of suicide

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Per c

ent w

ho sa

id 'y

es' t

o to

tal

Mingling with family ? Mingling with community? Mingling with neighbours?

46


4.2. Causes of farmer suicides

The decision to commit suicide by the victim cannot be assigned to any single reason. The final

act of committing suicide would be a combination of several causes which are broadly grouped

into social, farming and debt related.

4.2.1. Social causes of farmer suicides

Responses of victim households and neighbours / relatives / friends are presented in Table 4.2.

The respondents reported multiple and interconnected causes for committing suicides. Addiction

to alcohol and drug abuse (26%) was opined by victim HHs as one of the prominent social causes

followed by Illness (18%), family quarrel (16%), daughter’s marriage (11%) and extra-marital affair

(8%).

Fall in social reputation was reported as one of the causes for suicide by all the sample states

except UP. Gambling was reported by 33 per cent of HHs in Kerala, 27 per cent in TN, 18 per

cent in Chhattisgarh, eight per cent in MP and two per cent in Telangana. Family quarrel was also

reported by all states except TN. Partition of income was reported by four per cent of the victim

HHs in Maharashtra and two per cent in Karnataka.

It is to note that dowry was reported as a cause of suicide in TN (10%), AP (3%), Gujarat (3%),

Telangana (2%) and Maharashtra (2%). Daughter’s marriage was reported as social cause in all the

states except Chhattisgarh, UP and Haryana. Only three per cent of the victim HHs in Punjab

Figure 4.2. Per cent of victim HHs who answered that the victim was consuming food regularly and slept adequately

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Per c

ent o

f tho

se w

ho sa

id 'y

es' t

o to

tal

Consuming food regularly? Sleeping adequately?

47


Tabl

e 4.

2. S

ocia

l cau

ses

of f

arm

er s

uici

des

Sl.

No.

Cau

ses

Per c

ent o

f vic

tim H

Hs

who

ans

wer

ed ‘Y

es’ t

o th

e to

tal s

ampl

e

Mah

aras

htra

MP

Tela

ngan

aA

PC

hhat

tisga

rhK

arna

taka

Ker

ala

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

APr

oper

ty Di

spute

1Pa

rtition

of La

nd

2.00.0

6.08.0

0.02.0

0.00.0

4.04.0

1.91.9

11.0

11.0

2Pa

rtition

of H

ouse

0.00.0

2.02.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

2.02.0

0.00.0

7.07.0

3Pa

rtition

of In

come

4.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.02.0

1.92.8

0.00.0

4Pa

rtition

of

jewell

ery

0.00.0

2.010

.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.07.0

7.0

BMa

rriag

e rela

ted is

sues

1Do

wry

2.02.0

0.00.0

2.08.0

3.33.3

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

2Ex

tra m

arita

l aff

airs

0.00.0

36.0

44.0

0.00.0

0.03.3

28.0

32.0

0.00.0

4.04.0

3Di

vorce

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

4Lo

ve fa

ilure

0.0

0.016

.018

.00.0

2.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.0

CFa

mily

prob

lems a

nd co

mmitm

ents

1So

cial fu

nctio

ns6.0

2.00.0

0.010

.036

.040

.040

.04.0

4.01.9

1.90.0

0.0

2Da

ughte

r’s

marri

age

16.0

14.0

4.06.0

20.0

30.0

30.0

30.0

0.00.0

14.0

15.9

4.04.0

3So

n’s m

arria

ge

4.00.0

0.00.0

4.06.0

13.3

13.3

0.00.0

4.75.6

30.0

22.0

4Fa

mily

quar

rels

6.06.0

24.0

22.0

10.0

24.0

50.0

70.0

36.0

36.0

0.90.9

7.07.0

DIlln

ess

10.0

6.046

.048

.06.0

8.010

.010

.044

.048

.05.6

4.74.0

4.0

EDr

ug/A

lcoho

lic

addit

ion12

.08.0

32.0

44.0

22.0

22.0

10.0

16.7

58.0

62.0

3.73.7

85.0

74.0

FGa

mblin

g/Bett

ing /

Chit f

und

0.00.0

8.012

.02.0

2.00.0

6.718

.010

.00.0

0.033

.026

.0

GFa

ll in s

ocial

re

putat

ion4.0

0.022

.018

.012

.08.0

33.3

33.3

24.0

26.0

2.84.7

7.04.0

Tabl

e co

ntd…

.

48


Tabl

e co

ntin

ued

from

pre

viou

s pa

ge…

.

Tabl

e 4.

2. S

ocia

l cau

ses

of f

arm

er s

uici

des

Sl.

No.

Cau

ses

Per c

ent o

f vic

tim H

Hs

who

ans

wer

ed ‘Y

es’ t

o th

e to

tal s

ampl

e

Tam

il N

adu

Utta

r Pra

desh

Guj

arat

Punj

abH

arya

naW

est B

enga

lTo

tal

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

As

per

resp

onde

nt

As

per

Nei

ghbo

urs/

re

lativ

es/

frie

nds

APr

oper

ty Di

spute

1Pa

rtition

of La

nd

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

7.17.1

0.00.0

2.32.5

2Pa

rtition

of H

ouse

0.00.0

0.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.70.7

3Pa

rtition

of In

come

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.80.8

4Pa

rtition

of

jewell

ery

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.51.3

BMa

rriag

e rela

ted is

sues

1Do

wry

10.0

10.0

0.00.0

3.03.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

1.31.9

2Ex

tra m

arita

l aff

airs

0.00.0

0.00.0

3.03.0

0.00.0

21.4

14.3

10.0

13.3

7.68.9

3Di

vorce

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

3.03.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.20.2

4Lo

ve fa

ilure

0.0

0.06.7

6.70.0

0.00.0

0.014

.314

.310

.03.3

2.82.8

CFa

mily

prob

lems a

nd co

mmitm

ents

1So

cial fu

nctio

ns0.0

0.00.0

0.07.0

7.07.0

3.00.0

7.120

.00.0

6.57.4

2Da

ughte

r’s

marri

age

17.0

17.0

0.00.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

10.0

0.00.0

13.3

0.011

.412

.0

3So

n’s m

arria

ge

10.0

10.0

0.00.0

7.07.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

5.04.6

4Fa

mily

quar

rels

0.00.0

26.7

26.7

7.07.0

10.0

10.0

7.17.1

50.0

10.0

16.1

16.1

DIlln

ess

3.03.0

6.76.7

27.0

23.0

23.0

0.07.1

7.140

.013

.317

.814

.9

EDr

ug/A

lcoho

lic

addit

ion60

.053

.06.7

6.713

.013

.033

.033

.035

.735

.720

.020

.025

.926

.5

FGa

mblin

g/Bett

ing /

Chit f

und

27.0

20.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.00.0

0.03.3

5.95.3

GFa

ll in s

ocial

re

putat

ion10

.010

.00.0

0.017

.020

.067

.067

.014

.314

.350

.03.3

17.3

14.0

Sour

ce:

Prim

ary

surv

ey (

2015

-16)

49


reported divorce as one of the reason for suicide. The various social causes are presented in

Figure 4.3. Social autopsy results of neighbours, relatives and friends about the social causes of

suicide are in line with the opinions of the victim HHs.

4.2.2. Farming related causes of farmer suicides

It is important to know the farming related causes for farmer suicides considering the focus of

the study. Hence the data was collected on farming related causes leading to suicides for two

consecutive years, 2014-15 and 2015-16, which is presented in Table 4.3. The overall responses

of the victim HHs for these years remain more or less same with minor changes.

Lack of access to expected non-institutional credit and failure of rain was reported as major

farming-related causes by 37 per cent and 36 per cent of the victim HHs, respectively. This is

followed by non-realisation of higher output (35%), non-realisation of higher price (33%), lack of

access to expected institutional credit (33%) and lack of irrigation (32%).

The failure of the crop during the successive years (2014-15 and 2015-16) in the sample states was

considered as a major setback, which was responsible for suicides. Lack of access to expected

credit (70%), non-realisation of higher output and prices (69%) and crop failure (60%) were major

reasons reported by victim HHs for committing suicides. Failure of crops due to attack of pests

and diseases was reported by all the sample states, and lack of access to irrigation water was

reported by all states except MP, Chhattisgarh, UP and Punjab. The HHs of UP have reported crop

failure due pest and diseases (30%) and cyclones (30%) as causes for suicides.

Figure 4.3. Social causes of farmer suicides

2.3 0.7 0.8 0.5 1.3

7.6

0.22.8

6.5

11.4

5.0

16.117.8

25.9

5.9

17.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Part

ition

of l

and

Part

ition

of h

ouse

Part

ition

of i

ncom

e

Part

ition

of j

ewel

lerie

s

Dow

ry re

late

d iss

ues

Extr

a m

arita

l affa

irs

Divo

rce

Love

failu

re

Soci

al fu

nctio

ns

Daug

hter

’s m

arria

ge

Son’

s mar

riage

Freq

uent

qua

rrel

in fa

mily

Illne

ss

Drug

abu

se/A

lcoh

olic

addi

ctio

n

Gam

blin

g

Fall

in so

cial

repu

tatio

n

Property dispute Marriage related issues Family problems Others

Per c

ent t

o to

tal

50


Tabl

e 4.

3. F

arm

ing

rela

ted

caus

es o

f fa

rmer

sui

cide

s

Sl.

No.

Cau

ses

Per c

ent o

f vic

tim H

Hs

who

ans

wer

ed ‘Y

es’ t

o th

e to

tal s

ampl

e

Mah

aras

htra

MP

Tela

ngan

aA

PC

hhat

tisga

rhK

arna

taka

Ker

ala

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

1Fa

ilure

of c

rop/

s

a.Pe

sts

and

Dis

ease

s36

.072

.06.

06.

04.

09.

033

.320

.06.

04.

03.

78.

47.

030

.0

b.La

ck o

f acc

ess

to ir

rigat

ion

wat

er22

.044

.00.

00.

096

.090

.060

.036

.70.

00.

028

.041

.130

.019

.0

c.O

ther

s sp

ecify

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

20.0

20.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

4.0

4.0

2D

ue to

nat

ural

cal

amiti

es

a.C

yclo

ne e

ffect

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

6.7

3.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

63.0

56.0

b.Fa

ilure

of r

ainf

all/d

roug

ht25

.050

.08.

08.

096

.090

.066

.733

.314

.018

.017

.844

.959

.063

.0

c.Ac

cide

ntal

fire

2.0

4.0

6.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

1.9

0.0

0.0

d.O

ther

s sp

ecify

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

3In

abilit

y to

sel

l the

out

put

2.0

4.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

6.7

3.3

4.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

67.0

59.0

4W

ell f

ailu

res

5.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

60.0

40.0

10.0

6.7

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.9

0.0

0.0

5Q

uarre

l bet

wee

n th

e vi

ctim

& o

ther

s0.

00.

038

.056

.02.

03.

016

.713

.316

.012

.00.

00.

04.

04.

0

6a.

Non

-real

isat

ion

of H

ighe

r out

put

13.0

26.0

0.0

0.0

78.0

68.0

53.3

40.0

10.0

16.0

26.2

51.4

59.0

52.0

6b.

Non

-real

isat

ion

of H

ighe

r pric

es9.

018

.018

.016

.064

.060

.063

.333

.34.

00.

029

.037

.474

.081

.0

6c.

Expe

ctat

ion

of L

oan

wai

ving

16.0

32.0

2.0

2.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

66.4

67.3

89.0

78.0

6d.

Lack

of a

cces

s to

exp

ecte

d In

stitu

tiona

l cre

dit

11.0

22.0

2.0

2.0

30.0

26.0

20.0

16.7

0.0

0.0

71.0

72.0

81.0

78.0

6e.

Lack

of a

cces

s to

exp

ecte

d N

on-

inst

itutio

nal c

redi

t9.

018

.00.

00.

084

.068

.056

.730

.00.

00.

067

.368

.267

.067

.0

7La

ck o

f ext

ensi

on s

ervi

ces

3.0

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.9

0.0

0.0

8D

elay

ed p

aym

ent/

paym

ent i

n in

stal

men

ts fo

r the

sol

d ou

tput

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

6.0

3.3

3.3

0.0

0.0

7.5

6.5

41.0

37.0

9In

sura

nce

for t

he c

ultiv

ated

cro

p4.

08.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

01.

91.

948

.059

.0

10H

igh

cost

of B

t cot

ton

seed

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

11H

igh

cost

of p

rodu

ctio

n (re

peat

ed

sow

ing;

poo

r ger

min

atio

n; h

igh

labo

ur c

harg

es)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

12D

urin

g sp

rayi

ng, p

estic

ide

brea

thin

g0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

0

Cont

d...

51


Tabl

e co

ntin

ued

from

pre

viou

s pa

ge..

.

Tabl

e 4.

3. F

arm

ing

rela

ted

caus

es o

f fa

rmer

sui

cide

s

Sl.

No.

Cau

ses

Per c

ent o

f vic

tim H

Hs

who

ans

wer

ed ‘Y

es’ t

o th

e to

tal s

ampl

e

TNU

PG

ujar

atPu

njab

Har

yana

WB

In

dia

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

2014

-15

2015

-16

1Fa

ilure

of c

rop/

s

a.Pe

sts

and

Dis

ease

s37

.033

.030

.030

.020

.017

.043

.043

.050

.042

.946

.76.

719

.321

.5

b.La

ck o

f acc

ess

to ir

rigat

ion

wat

er80

.087

.00.

00.

040

.030

.00.

00.

050

.042

.943

.36.

732

.432

.2

c.O

ther

s sp

ecify

50.0

40.0

0.0

0.0

13.0

13.0

0.0

0.0

7.1

7.1

3.3

13.3

6.1

6.1

2D

ue to

nat

ural

cal

amiti

es

a.C

yclo

ne e

ffect

10.0

0.0

30 .0

30.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.9

4.9

b.Fa

ilure

of r

ainf

all/d

roug

ht57

.067

.00.

00.

047

.023

.00.

00.

050

.042

.910

.00.

031

.736

.2

c.Ac

cide

ntal

fire

33.0

73.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.1

7.1

3.3

0.0

3.2

5.7

d.O

ther

s sp

ecify

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.3

0.0

36.6

0.0

2.5

0.0

3In

abilit

y to

sel

l the

out

put

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

10.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

46.7

13.3

7.8

5.7

4W

ell f

ailu

res

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.3

6.7

7.9

5.9

5Q

uarre

l bet

wee

n th

e vi

ctim

& o

ther

s0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

03.

03.

014

.314

.336

.710

.09.

18.

8

6a.

Non

-real

isat

ion

of H

ighe

r out

put

53.0

50.0

0.0

0.0

10.0

3.0

43.0

43.0

42.9

28.6

60.0

60.0

31.5

35.4

6b.

Non

-real

isat

ion

of H

ighe

r pric

es70

.080

.00.

00.

07.

03.

033

.033

.042

.928

.660

.060

.033

.033

.3

6c.

Expe

ctat

ion

of L

oan

wai

ving

57.0

63.0

0.0

0.0

3.0

0.0

10.0

10.0

21.4

21.4

46.7

96.7

26.9

31.1

6d.

Lack

of a

cces

s to

exp

ecte

d In

stitu

tiona

l cre

dit

87.0

80.0

0.0

0.0

7.0

0.0

53.0

53.0

28.6

28.6

33.3

10.0

34.7

33.1

6e.

Lack

of a

cces

s to

exp

ecte

d N

on-

inst

itutio

nal c

redi

t70

.060

.00.

00.

03.

00.

063

.063

.021

.47.

146

.746

.740

.036

.9

7La

ck o

f ext

ensi

on s

ervi

ces

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

67.0

70.0

7.1

7.1

73.3

73.3

8.8

9.3

8D

elay

ed p

aym

ent/

paym

ent i

n in

stal

men

ts fo

r the

sol

d ou

tput

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

7.1

7.1

43.3

0.0

7.4

4.2

9In

sura

nce

for t

he c

ultiv

ated

cro

p0.

00.

00.

00.

07.

07.

017

.017

.07.

17.

10.

00.

04.

85.

7

10H

igh

cost

of B

t cot

ton

seed

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

17.0

13.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.0

0.7

11H

igh

cost

of p

rodu

ctio

n (re

peat

ed

sow

ing;

poo

r ger

min

atio

n; h

igh

labo

ur c

harg

es)

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.0

27.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.9

1.5

12D

urin

g sp

rayi

ng, p

estic

ide

brea

thin

g0.

00.

00.

00.

03.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

20.

0

Sour

ce:

Prim

ary

surv

ey (

2015

-16)

52


Cyclone was reported as one of the causes in Kerala (56%), UP (30%), AP (3%) and Karnataka (1%).

Drought was common cause in all states except UP, Punjab and WB. Inability to sell the output

was mainly reported by the HHs of Kerala (59%). Well failure was reported by 40 per cent of

victim HHs in Telangana.

Non realization of higher output was one of the major causes in all states except UP and

MP. Similarly, non realisation of higher prices was also the major reason in all states except

Chhattisgarh and UP. Non-realization of higher output was opined as a major reason for suicides

in Telangana (68%), West Bengal (60%), Tamil Nadu (50%) and Kerala (52%), while non-realization

of higher price was 60 per cent, 60 per cent in Telangana and West Bengal, and 80 per cent in

Tamil Nadu and Kerala each.

Failure to avail expected amount of credit was mentioned as a major cause in all the sample

states, except Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Lack of access to expected institutional credit

was highest in TN (80%), whereas expectation of non-institutional credit was highest in Telangana

(68%). Expectation of loan waiving was cited as a reason for suicide in West Bengal (97%), Kerala

(78%), Karnataka (67%) and Tamil Nadu (63%).

Lack of extension services was highlighted as a farming-related cause which was opined by 73 per

cent of victim HHs in West Bengal and 70 per cent in Punjab. Kerala (37%) is the only state where

Figure 4.4. Farming related causes of farmer suicides

21.5

32.2

4.9

36.2

5.7 5.7 5.98.8

35.433.3

31.133.1

36.9

9.3

4.2 5.7

0.7 1.50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Pest

s & d

iseas

es

Irrig

atio

n

Cycl

one

Failu

re o

f rai

n

Acci

dent

al fi

re

Inab

ility

to se

ll ou

tput

Wel

l fai

lure

Qua

rrel

vic

tim v

/s o

ther

s

High

er o

utpu

t

High

er p

rices

Loan

wai

ving

Inst

itutio

nal c

redi

t

Non

-Inst

itutio

nal c

redi

t

Exte

nsio

n se

rvic

es

Dela

yed

paym

ent

Insu

ranc

e

High

seed

CO

ST

High

cos

t of c

ultiv

atio

n

CropFailure

Naturalcalamities

Nonrealisation

of

Expectation of Others

Per c

ent t

o to

tal s

ampl

e

53


a relatively higher percentage of victim households committed suicide due to delayed payment

to the output sold. This was followed by Karnataka (7%), Telangana (6%), Andhra Pradesh (3%) and

Haryana (7%).

4.2.3. Indebtedness related causes of farmer suicides

Over time, indebtedness has become one of the major problems leading to agrarian distress,

which is responsible for farmer suicide. Existing literature strongly supports this argument as

well. It can be clearly seen from Table 4.4 and Figure 4.5 that crop loan was identified as the

prominent indebted-related cause of farmer suicide. Forty four per cent of the total victim

households indicated crop loan as the major reason for farmer suicide.

Suicides due to institutional loan (44%), non-institutional loan (37%), pressure from money lenders

(36%), non-agricultural loan (28%), pressure from institutional sources (28%) and farm equipment

loan (10%) were the major indebted related causes of suicides as opined by the victim HHs across

sample states.

Suicides committed due to institutional loan was mainly stated by HHs of Karnataka (87%), TN

(77%), Maharashtra (62%), Kerala (59%) and West Bengal (50%), whereas as non-institutional loan

by Punjab (80%), Karnataka (71%), West Bengal (67%), Telangana (60%) and TN (50%).

Pressure from institutional sources was reported as a major cause for farmer suicides by TN (77%),

Kerala (56%) and Karnataka (51%), whereas pressure from non-institutional sources by Karnataka

(70%), Telangana (68%), Punjab (63%), WB (57%) and TN (50%). West Bengal (57%) and TN (53%).

Figure 4.5. Indebtedness related causes of farmer suicides

44.3

9.9

27.5

37.1

28.1

36.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Due to crop loan Due to farmequipment loan

Due to non-agricultural loan

Due to non-institutional loan

Due to pressurefrom institutional

sources

Due to pressurefrom non-

institutionalsources (mainlymoney lenders)

Per c

ent t

o to

tal

54


Table 4.4. Indebtedness related causes of farmer suicides

States Years

Per cent of HHs to total sample who answered ‘Yes’

Due to crop loan

Due to farm equipment

loan

Due to non-

agricultural loan

Due to non-institutional

loan

Pressure from

institutional sources

Pressure from non-

institutional sources

Maharashtra2014-15 31.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 6.0 7.0

2015-16 62.0 14.0 18.0 16.0 12.0 14.0

Madhya Pradesh2014-15 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

2015-16 0.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0

Telangana2014-15 58.0 12.0 46.0 75.0 40.0 84.0

2015-16 48.0 4.0 39.0 60.0 26.0 68.0

Andhra Pradesh2014-15 63.3 43.3 50.0 66.7 26.7 63.3

2015-16 30.0 16.7 26.7 36.7 10.0 40.0

Chhattisgarh2014-15 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

2015-16 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Karnataka2014-15 85.1 14.0 48.6 71.0 44.9 65.4

2015-16 86.9 14.0 48.6 71.0 50.5 70.1

Kerala2014-15 - - - - - -

2015-16 59.0 4.0 22.0 15.0 56.0 15.0

Tamil Nadu2014-15 67.0 27.0 47.0 40.0 67.0 40.0

2015-16 77.0 20.0 53.0 50.0 77.0 50.0

Uttar Pradesh2014-15 - - - - - -

2015-16 0.0 0.0 13.0 10.1 36.7 16.7

Gujarat2014-15 17.0 10.0 7.0 17.0 10.0 13.0

2015-16 10.0 10.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

Punjab2014-15 47.0 20.0 37.0 77.0 43.0 57.0

2015-16 47.0 20.0 37.0 80.0 47.0 63.0

Haryana2014-15 57.1 28.6 7.1 28.6 21.4 14.3

2015-16 42.9 28.6 7.1 14.3 14.3 0.0

West Bengal2014-15 50.0 16.7 43.3 66.7 10.0 60.0

2015-16 50.0 0.0 56.7 66.7 10.0 56.7

Total 2014-15 41.1 12.4 26.1 38.6 23.5 35.9

2015-16 44.3 9.9 27.5 37.1 28.1 36.1


Note: “-“ indicates data not furnished in state reports

4.2.4. Ranking of the causes of farmer suicides

Respondents were asked to rank the social, farming and indebtedness related causes of farmer

suicides. The responses assigned to each of the causes are presented in Table 4.5. It can be seen

from the table that indebtedness due to crop loan has been the top reason for committing suicide

after combining the causes of all the states.

55


Table 4.5. Ranking of the social, farming and indebtedness related causes of suicides

Sl. No.

Causes Per cent of HHs who answered "Yes"

Ranking as per cent who answered "Yes"

1 Indebtedness due to crop loan 44.3 1

2 Indebtedness due to non-institutional loan 37.1 2

3 Lack of access to expected Non-institutional credit 36.9 3

4 Failure of rain / drought 36.2 4

5 Recovery pressure from non-institutional sources 36.1 5

6 Non-realisation of higher output 35.4 6

7 Non-realisation of higher price 33.3 7

8 Lack of access to expected institutional credit 33.1 8

9 Crop failure due to lack of irrigation 32.2 9

10 Expectation of loan waiver 31.1 10

11 Recovery pressure from institutional sources 28.1 11

12 Indebtedness due to non-agricultural loan 27.5 12

13 Drug abuse and alcohol addiction 26.5 13

14 Crop failure due to pests and diseases 21.5 14

15 Family quarrel 16.1 15

16 Illness 14.9 16

17 Fall in social reputation 14 17

18 Daughter’s marriage 12 18

19 Indebtedness due to farm equipment loan 9.9 19

20 Lack of extension services 9.3 20

21 Quarrel between victim and others 8.8 21

22 Extra marital affairs 7.6 22

23 Social functions 6.5 23

24 Well failure 5.9 24

25 Gambling / betting / chit fund 5.9 25

26 Inability to sell output 5.7 26

27 Insurance 5.7 27

28 Accidental fire 5.7 28

29 Son’s marriage 5 29

30 Cyclone 4.9 30

31 Delayed payment 4.2 31

32 Failure of Love 2.8 32

33 Partition of land 2.3 33

34 High cost of production 1.5 34

35 Dowry 1.3 35

36 Partition of income 0.8 36

37 High seed cost 0.7 37

38 Partition of house 0.7 38

39 Partition of jewelleries 0.5 39

40 Divorce 0.2 40


56


The top ranked causes for suicides among 13 sample states include Indebtedness due to crop

loan (44.3%), indebtedness due to non-institutional loan (37.1%), Lack of access to expected

non-institutional credit (36.9%), recovery pressure from non-institutional sources (36.1%), non-

realization of higher output (35.4%), non-realization of higher prices (33.3%), Lack of access to

expectedinstitutional credit (33.1%), crop failure due to lack of irrigation (32.2%), expectation

of loan waiver (31.1%), Recovery pressure from institutional sources (28.1%), indebtedness due

to non-agricultural loan (27.5%), Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (26.5%) and crop failure due

to pest and diseases (21.5%). Figure 4.6 presents the social, farming and indebtedness related

causes of suicides for which more than ten per cent of the HHs have answered “Yes”.

State-wise top five causes of suicides during 2014-15 and 2015-16 presented in Table 4.6(a) and

Table 4.6(b). It can be seen from the tables that state-wise major causes reported by the victim

HHs widely vary across states during both years. Crop failure as a major cause for suicide was

reported in Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana, AP, TN and UP. Indebtedness as one of the

main causes was seen in Maharashtra, Telangana, AP, Karnataka, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and

WB. Non-realisation of higher output and price was reported in Telangana, AP, Kerala, TN, and

Haryana. Lack of access to expected credit was opined by households of Telangana, Karnataka,

Kerala, TN and Punjab. Expectation of loan waiving was opined in Maharashtra, WB and Kerala.

The top five causes remained almost same in both years in most of the sample states with minor

variations in the percentages.

Considering sample states, top five causes in 2014-15 were indebtedness due to crop loan (41.06%),

Lack of access to expected non-institutional credit (40.04%), indebtedness due to non-institutional

loan (38.58%), indebtedness cause due to pressure from non-institutional sources (mainly money

lenders) (35.89%), and Lack of access to expected institutional credit (34.75%). While top five causes

Figure 4.6. Social, farming and indebtedness related causes for suicides for which more than ten per cent of the households answered “Yes”

44.3

37.1 36.9 36.2 36.1 35.433.3 33.1 32.2 31.1

28.1 27.5 25.921.5

17.8 17.3 16.112

05

101520253035404550

per c

ent t

o to

tal

57


in 2015-16 were Indebtedness due to crop loan (44.34%), Indebtedness due to non-institutional

loan (37.12%), Lack of access to expected Non-institutional credit (36.93%), Rain failure/drought

(36.18%) and Indebtedness cause due to pressure from non-institutional sources (mainly money

lenders) (36.15%).

Table 4.6(a). State-wise top five causes of suicides by victim HHs during 2014-15

Sl. No. State First Second Third Fourth Fifth

1 MaharashtraCrop failure due to pests and diseases (36.00%)

Indebtedness due to crop loan (31.00%)

Failure of rain / drought (25.00%)

Crop failure due to lack of irrigation (22.00%)

Daughter marriage (16.00%)

2 Madhya Pradesh Illness (46.00%) Quarrel between victim and other (38.00%)

Extra marital affairs (36.00%)

Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (32.00%) Family quarrel (24.00%)

3 Telangana Crop failure due to lack of irrigation (96.01%)


Lack of access to expected Non-institutional credit (84.01%)

Indebtedness cause due to pressure from non-institutional sources (mainly money lenders) (84.00%)

Non-realistion of higher output (78.00%)

4 Andhra Pradesh Failure of rain / drought (66.68%)

Indebtedness due to non-institutional loan (66.67%)



Non-realisation of higher price (63.33%)

5 Chhattisgarh Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (58.00%) Illness (44.00%) Family quarrel (36.00%) Extra marital affairs

(28.00%)Fall in social reputation (24.00%)

6 Karnataka Indebtedness due to crop loan (85.05%)

Lack of access to expected Institutional credit (71.03%)



Expectation of loan waiver (66.36%)

7 Kerala Expectation of loan waiver (89.00%)

Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (85.00%)



Inability to sell output (67.00%)

8 Tamil NaduLack of access to expected Institutional credit (87.00%)





9 Uttar Pradesh

Indebtedness due to pressure from institutional sources (36.67%)

Crop failure due to pests and diseases (30.01%)

Cyclone (30.00%) Family quarrel (26.67%)


10 Gujarat Failure of rain / drought (47.00%)


High cost of production (33.00%) Illness (27.00%) Crop failure due to pests

and diseases (20.00%)

11 PunjabIndebtedness due to non-institutional loan (77.00%)

Fall in social reputation (67.01%)

Lack of extension services (67.00%)



12 Haryana Indebtedness due to crop loan (57.10%)




Non-realisation of higher output (42.90%)

13 West Bengal Lack of extension services (73.30%)



Non-realisation of high output (60.01%)

Non-realisation of high price (60.00%)

TotalIndebtedness due to crop loan (41.06%)






Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate the per cent of HHs who said yes to total sample for respective states

58


Table 4.6(b). State-wise top five causes of suicides by victim HHs during 2015-16

Sl. No. State First Second Third Fourth Fifth

1 Maharashtra Crop failure due to pests and diseases (72.00%)





2 Madhya Pradesh

Quarrel between victim and other (56.00%) Illness (46.00%) Extra marital affairs

(36.00%)Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (32.00%) Family quarrel (24.00%)

3 Telangana Crop failure due to lack of irrigation (90.01%)





4 Andhra Pradesh Family quarrel (50.00%)


Non-realisation of higher output (40.10%) Social function (40.00%) Crop failure due to lack of

irrigation (36.67%)

5 Chhattisgarh Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (58.00%) Illness (44.00%) Family quarrel (36.00%) Extra marital affairs

(28.00%)Fall in social reputation (24.00%)

6 Karnataka Indebtedness due to crop loan (86.92%)





7 Kerala Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (85.00%)




Lack of access to expected Non-institutional credit (67%)

8 Tamil Nadu Crop failure due to lack of irrigation (87.00%)

Non-realisation of high er price (80.10%)




9 Uttar Pradesh


Crop failure due to pests and diseases (30.10%) Cyclone (30.00%) Family quarrel (26.67%)


10 Gujarat Crop failure due to lack of irrigation (30.00%)

High cost of production (27.10%) Illness (27.00%) Failure of rain / drought

(23.00%)Fall in social reputation (17%)

11 PunjabIndebtedness due to non-institutional loan (80.00%)


Fall in social reputation (67.01%)


Indebtedness cause due to pressure from non-institutional sources (mainly money lenders) (63%)

12 Haryana Failure of rain / drought (43.20%)




Drug abuse and alcohol addiction (35.70%)

13 West Bengal Expectation of loan waiver (96.70%)





TotalIndebtedness due to crop loan (44.34%)





Source: Primary survey (2015-16) Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate the per cent of HHs who said yes to total sample for respective states

4.3. Impact of suicides on victim households

The impacts of farmer suicides on victim HHs are social, psychological and economic in nature.

The socioeconomic impacts of suicide on the victim HHs are presented in Table 4.7. The victim

was the only breadwinner in majority of the victim households. Hence loss of the breadwinner

was the prominent impact. This has been mentioned by 34 per cent of the victim HHs. Insecurity

in the family (33%) and family members under depression (25%) were other major impacts opined

59


by victim HHs across states. Discontinuation of agricultural activities was another impact as

indicated by 21 per cent of victim HHs. Such impacts were evident in West Bengal (63%), Haryana

(57%), and Tamil Nadu (53%). Insecurity in the family was opined majorly in TN (87%), WB (77%)

and Telangana (58%), whereas family members under depression was mainly reported in TN (90%)

and WB (80%). The overall impact on the victim HHs at all India level after the suicide is presented

in Figure 4.7.

Table 4.7. Impact of farmer suicides on victim households

Sl. No. State

Dis-continuation

of agri. activities

No earning member

Dis- continuation of

Schooling

Land sold

House sold

Other assets sold

Post-ponement of marriage of

children

Illness among family

members

Family members

under depression

Insecurity in the family

Others

1 Maharashtra 20.0 44.0 14.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 10.0 18.0 22.0 0.0

2 MP 0.0 40.0 32.0 36.0 0.0 2.0 18.0 2.0 4.0 18.0 0.0

3 Telangana 18.0 30.0 16.0 18.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 12.0 58.0 0.0

4 AP 10.0 13.3 20.0 13.3 3.3 26.7 0.0 3.3 6.7 16.7 0.0

5 Chhattisgarh 2.0 38.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.0 42.0 12.0

6 Karnataka 30.8 35.5 4.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 6.5 18.7 21.5 0.0

7 Kerala 3.0 10.0 1.0 15.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 18.0 18.0 22.0 0.0

8 Tamil Nadu 53.0 60.0 27.0 7.0 10.0 17.0 40.0 63.0 90.0 87.0 83.0

9 UP 0.0 10.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 33.3 30.0 0.0

10 Gujarat 33.0 43.0 27.0 3.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 43.0 30.0 6.0

11 Punjab 3.0 4.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 8.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

12 Haryana 57.1 42.9 0.0 0.0 7.1 14.3 0.0 7.1 35.7 21.4 7.1

13 West Bengal 63.3 56.7 13.7 3.3 3.3 10.0 3.3 30.0 80.0 76.7 20.0

Total 20.9 33.9 14.0 8.2 1.3 4.7 6.4 11.4 25.0 33.0 7.5


Figure 4.7. Impact of farmer suicides on victim households

33.9 33.0

25.020.9

14.011.4

8.2 7.5 6.4 4.71.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Per c

ent t

o to

tal

60


4.4. Suggestions to prevent farmer suicides by victim households

An attempt was made to elicit suggestions from victim households to prevent farmer suicides

in the future and detailed responses are presented in Table 4.8. Suggestions were provided

by majority of victim households in all the sample states. The type and number of suggestions

offered by victim households varied across the sample states.

Majority of the suggestions originated from social causes, farming crisis and credit inadequacy

encountered by victims and also the impact being faced by victim households after death of victim.

Therefore, all the suggestions can be broadly grouped as: (i) Counseling, (ii) Provision of credit

facilities, (iii) Crop Insurance and compensation during crop failure, (iv) Creation of irrigation

facilities, (v) Creation of alternative income generating activities, (vi) Extension activities,

(vii) Increasing MSP or extending the MSP to crops for which it is not there and (viii) supply of

quality inputs at subsidized rates. Figure 4.8 highlights the major suggestions at aggregate level

expressed in terms of per cent to total sample.

Overall, the request for counseling for alcohol and drug de-addiction through establishment

of rehabilitation centres has come from most of the states. However, high percent of victim

households requesting counseling was received from MP (82%), Chhattisgarh (92%) and Kerala

(85%). The next important suggestion was related to credit, which include credit at low interest

rates, increasing credit amount and availability of loan without collateral security. The percent

Figure 4.8 Overall suggestions from victim households

5553 52

43 43

27

18 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Counselling Provision ofcredit facilities

Crop Insuranceand

Compensationduring crop

failure

Creation ofirrigationfacilities

Creation ofalternative

incomegeneratingactivities

Extensionactivities

IncreasingMSP and

coverage ofcrops under

MSP

Supply ofquality inputsat subsidized

rates

Per c

ent t

o th

e to

tal s

ampl

e

61


of sample households making credit related suggestion were found to be comparatively lesser

in states like Karnataka, Maharashtra and Haryana. The third common suggestions offered in

most of the states was related to crop failure. Therefore, the suggestion to compensate them

whenever the crops fails was not beyond expectation. But, this suggestion was not conspicuous

among the victim households of Haryana, Punjab, Maharastra, AP, Telangana and Gujarat. Fourth

suggestion was related to irrigation. Irrigation related suggestions came prominently from victim

households of Karnataka, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh.

Another important suggestion was request for alternative employment generation - either within

farming (crop and enterprise diversification) or outside farming. Few of the victim households

felt the lack of extension services on creating awareness about government programmes for

agricultural activities, education about use of farm machineries, imparting knowledge on crop/

variety diversification including modern technology. However, the per cent of households offering

these suggestions were relatively higher in Kerala and Chhattisgarh. The request to increase MSP

was mainly from the states of Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Telangana.

Households of Maharashtra having witnessed the highest number of suicides suggested about

addressing the issue of water scarcity (18%), increasing credit facilities and public investment in

agriculture (14%), and on increasing MSP (12%). Victim households of Andhra Pradesh provided

the common suggestion of extending loan at lower interest rate and fixing higher prices for the

output whereas the common suggestion provided by households of Telangana was to provide

irrigation facility.

Coverage of crop insurance schemes, adequate compensation during crop failure, Institutional

annual interest rate not more than 4 per cent, compound interest rate not be charged by credit

institutions, access to markets for realizing better price were the major suggestion made by the

entire households of UP.

The households of Haryana commonly suggested on extending loans at a lower interest rate, to

reschedule the loan, and to waive off the loan during distress condition. In the state of Gujarat as

less as 10 per cent of the sample households have offered suggestions. The suggestion made was

need of Government support during drought years and ban on alcohol consumption at villages,

Medical facilities to be provided by government, creation of awareness about saving and social

responsibility.

62


Table 4.8. State-wise suggestions from victim households to prevent farmer suicides

Sl. No. Suggestions

Percent of HH to total sample of the

respective state

1. Maharashtra (Sample size=50)

1 To take measures to cope up with water scarcity 18

2 To increase credit facilities and public investment in agriculture 14

3 Increase MSP 12

4 To create a drought stabilization fund 10

5 To implement schemes for loan waiver 6

6 Reduce price of inputs especially seeds and fertilizers 4

2. Madhya Pradesh (Sample size=50)

1 A Psychologist should be appointed at least at district hospital for counsel distressed farmers 82

2 Establishment of rehabilitation centre for drug/alcoholic addiction 78

3 Skill up-gradation / capacity building centre must be established at block level 64

4 Compensation for crop damage/losses should at least meet input costs 62

5 Supply of better quality inputs 58

6 Increase/declaration of MSP for all crops 54

7 Creation of non/off-farm level employment opportunities at village level 52

8 Coverage of crop insurance scheme to all farmers 46

9 Awareness should be created about state and central department agricultural developmental programmes 42

10 Coverage of health insurance to all farmers 32

11 Crop/varietal diversification 22

12 Role of social institutions should be increased 16

3. Telangana (Sample size=50)

1 To provide - Irrigation facility to cultivation, Alternative income sources, Free cost for drilling bore wells 100

2 Provide higher output prices 84

3 Provide loans at lower interest 58

4 Supporting dairy enterprise 56

5 Providing loans at lower interest to leased farmers 46

Contd....

63


Sl. No. Suggestions


respective state

4. Andhra Pradesh (Sample size=30)

1 Provide - Loans at lower interest rate and higher output price 100

2 Support dairy enterprises 53

3 Provide loans at lower interest rate to leased farmers 37

4 Support alternate income sources 17

5. Chhattisgarh (Sample size=50)

1 A Psychologist should be appointed at least at district hospital to counsel distressed farmers 92

2 Coverage of crop insurance scheme to all farmers 88

3 Establishment of rehabilitation centre for drug/alcoholic addiction 82

4 Increase/declaration of MSP for all crops 78

5 Creation of non/off-farm level employment opportunities at village level 72

6 Compensation for crop damage/losses should at least meet input costs 66

7 Skill up-gradation / capacity building centre must be established at block level. 58

8 Awareness should be created about central and state agricultural developmental programs 48

9 Supply of better quality inputs 44

10 Higher role of social institutions 30

11 Coverage of health insurance to all farmers 22

12 Crop/varietal diversification 18

6. Karnataka (Sample size=43*)

1 Government should pay compensation when crop fails 19

2 Provide irrigation facilities 13

3 MSP of selected crops should be based on cost of cultivation plus profit margin 11

4 Tobacco cultivation should be banned 8

5 Immediate payment to the produce sold & Government should help to take-up allied activities like dairy, livestock rearing. 7

6 Loan should be given to all crops and on time 5

7 Loan waiving and reduction of bank interest rate 4

8 Only licensed money lenders should operate & Timely availability of inputs like seeds and fertilizers 2

Contd....

64


Sl. No. Suggestions


respective state

7. Kerala (Sample size=27)

1 Psychological counseling to farmers 85

2 Crop loan amount may be increased 81

3 Use of modern technology may be supported 67

4 Alcohol consumption should be banned 59

5 Reasonable output price should be provided & Reviving cooperative system 52

6 Compensation to be increased 44

7 Subsidy to be increased 33

8 Diversion of farm credit to other uses should be stopped through monitoring 11

9 Coverage of crop insurance to all the farmers 7

8. Tamil Nadu (Sample size=30)

1 Compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to be provided 90

2 Cauvery management Board to be established for regulating water dispute 73

3 Waiving of institutional credit 60

4 Per acre crop loan amount may be increased 53

5 Subsidies of diesel, power, fertilizers & pesticides should be enhanced 43

6 Supporting community bore wells 43

7 Supporting micro irrigation 40

8 Improving access to irrigation 27

9 Government job to be provided to a member of victim HH 20

10 Farmers development fund to be created at taluk 13

9. Uttar Pradesh (Sample size=30)

1

Coverage of crop insurance schemes, adequate compensation during crop failure, Institutional annual interest rate should not more than 4 per cent, compound interest rate should not be charged by credit institutions, access to markets for realizing better price.

100

2 Loan waving & access to loans without collateral security 90

3 Unemployed rural youth should be linked with MNREGA 80

4 Increasing higher access to institutional credit 75

5 Expansion of irrigation networks, efficient management of water & crop/enterprise diversification for realizing sustainable income 60

Contd....

65


Sl. No. Suggestions


respective state

10. Gujarat (Sample size=30)

Government should fully support in drought year & ban on alcohol consumption at villages 7

Medical facilities should be provided by government, create awareness about saving & social responsibility 3

11. Punjab (Sample size=30)

1 Increase in non- farm employment opportunities 63

2 Regularization of non-institutional credit 27

3 Increase MSP for all crops 20

4 Hike in input subsidies 13

5 Crop insurance 10

6 Compensation for crop damage/losses should at least meet input costs & provision of free education for children 7

7 Increased role of social institution 5

8Crop diversification, Supply of better quality inputs & health insurance

3

12. Haryana (Sample size=14)

1 Lower interest rate, rescheduling of loans, loan waving & compensation during distress situation 100

2 Creating employment opportunities & counselling for overcoming distress situation 21

3 Alcohol consumption should be prohibited at villages & increase MSP 14

4Loan waving, compensation, higher access to credit, supply of quality seeds, protecting farmers from exploitation from the moneylenders & commission agents through regulation

7

13. West Bengal (Sample size=30)

1 Provision of compulsory crop loan 27

2 Insurance during crop failure 23

3 Institutional support for marketing 20

4 Increasing MGREGA employment 17

5 Adequate medical care for poor farmers, Counselling from Panchayats 13

6 Agricultural mechanization, Provision of crop loan, Price protection for output 3


Note: * 43 Victim households have provided suggestions out of 107

66



Field visit - Madhya Pradesh

67


Chapter V : FINDINGS AND POLICY SUGGESTIONS

The findings and policy suggestions are presented under the following headings as follows:

5.1. Findings

5.1.1. Household characteristics, cropping pattern and income status

• Nearly 58 per cent and 8 per cent of the victim HHs possessed BPL and AAY cards,

respectively. Andhra Pradesh (93%) has the highest percentage of BPL and AAY cards

followed by Telangana and Karnataka (86% each), Tamil Nadu (80%) and Chhattisgarh (78%),

whereas the least was in Punjab (10%). Maharashtra having witnessed highest number of

farmer suicides, had only 62 per cent of victims with BPL or AAY cards.

• Victim farmers consisted of 94 per cent of male farmers and six per cent of female farmers.

The female victims were reported in Telangana (36%), Gujarat (10%), Tamil Nadu (7%), West

Bengal (7%), Chhattisgarh (4%), Karnataka (4%), Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh (2% each).

• The highest percentage of victims belong to OBC (46%) followed by General (29%), SC (16%)

and ST (9%). The percentage of SC and ST victims was found to be higher in Chhattisgarh

(70%), West Bengal (50%), Uttar Pradesh (47%), Tamil Nadu (40%) and Maharashtra (32%),

whereas it was lower in Gujarat and Punjab (3% each).

• Seventy per cent of the victims were in the age group of 31 to 60 years, 17 per cent in

less than 30 years and 13 per cent in above 60 years. Victims in the age group of 31 to 60

years were fully involved in agriculture and are prone to agrarian distress. Special efforts

needed to counsel farmers of this age group to overcome distress situation. Relatively

higher number of farmer suicides in the age group of 31 to 60 years was reported in

AP (90%), Karnataka (83%), MP (82%), Haryana (79%), Punjab (73%), Chhattisgarh (70%),

Gujarat (70%), Maharashtra (62%), Telangana (60%) and West Bengal (60%).

• Nearly 56 per cent of the victims were educated upto matriculation, 33 per cent were

illiterates and 11 per cent were educated more than matriculation. The percentage of

illiterates was found to be highest in MP (62%) followed by AP (53%), UP (40%), Maharashtra

(40%), Karnataka (35%) and TN (33%).

• Most of the victim farmers (91%) were married and had two children on an average which

indicates the extent of dependence on the victim. The higher percentage of married

victims was found in AP (100%), MP (98%), Chhattisgarh (98%), TN (97%), Telangana (96%),

Karnataka (93.5%) and Maharashtra (92%) as compared to remaining sample states.

68


• The most common methods adopted for committing suicide included Poisonous/Plant

Protection Chemicals (PPCs) consumption (48%) and hanging (43%). Most of the victims

in Andhra Pradesh (77%), Punjab (73%), Madhya Pradesh (72%), Tamil Nadu (70%), Gujarat

(67%) and West Bengal (53%) resorted to suicide through poison consumption, whereas

victims resorted to hanging in Chhattisgarh (78%), Kerala (67%), UP (67%), Haryana (57%)

and Maharashtra (52%).

• Nearly 57 per cent of the victims committed suicide at their residence and 36 per cent in

farm. There were also instances where victims committed suicide in places like hotels/

lodges (7%).

• The average operational land holding of victim HHs was 3.4 acres, of which, 55 per cent

was irrigated with groundwater (70%) being the major source of irrigation. Groundwater

was the major source of irrigation in UP (100%), Haryana (100%), Kerala (97%), West Bengal

(91%), Telangana (91%), Gujarat (85%) and Maharashtra (80%). The highest land holding was

found in Haryana (18 acres) followed by 6.6 acres in Punjab, 6 acres in Gujarat, 4.1 acres

in AP and 4 acres in Maharashtra. Whereas the least operational land was found in West

Bengal (1.2 acres). It is to further note that victims in Kerala, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and

West Bengal had only irrigated land.

• Marginal and small victim farmers constituted 76 per cent to the total victim HHs followed

by Medium (16%) and Large (8%). The percentage of marginal and small victim farmers

was relatively higher in UP (97%), West Bengal (97%), Telangana (96%), Kerala (93%),

Karnataka (80%), Chhattisgarh (90%), AP (78%), TN (76%) and Maharashtra (76%). Whereas,

the percentage of medium and large victim farmers was relatively higher in Haryana (86%)

and MP (53%).

• Marginal and small farmers among the victims operated 56 per cent of the total operational

land followed by Medium (27%) and Large (17%). Nearly 90 per cent of the land was

operated by marginal and small victim HHs in Telangana followed by 86 per cent in UP

and West Bengal, Maharashtra (82%) and MP (82%). Conversely, medium and large victim

HHs operated relatively higher area in Haryana (99%), Punjab (80%) and Gujarat (77%).

The distribution of land across categories clearly indicates inequity in distribution of land.

The extent of inequity was relatively higher in Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Karnataka,

Chhattisgarh and AP.

• The annual average net income realized per HHs was Rs.73,142, of which 72 per cent was

derived from agriculture and allied activities. The average annual expenditure incurred

was Rs.59,868, of which, 50 per cent spent on food and remaining on non-food items.

Overall, Rs.13,274 was the surplus amount realized after accounting for expenditure

which is just above poverty line income. The deficit was seen in Gujarat (Rs.78,823),

Maharashtra (Rs.63,787), Telangana (Rs.2,426) and West Bengal (Rs.2,466). The surplus

69


was relatively higher in Haryana (Rs.3,36,500) and Kerala (Rs.2,06,705). It is to note that

victim households in Maharashtra incurred loss of Rs.11,526 from agriculture and allied

activities, which are reflected in highest number of suicides during 2015-16.

• The net income of victim HHs depended on the cropping pattern. Cereals and cash crops

are the major crops grown in 57 per cent and 22 per cent of the gross cropped area,

respectively. The remaining crops include oilseeds (10%), pulses (5%), fodder crops (2%),

fruits (2%) and vegetables (1%). Among crops, the highest area was reported in Paddy (30%)

followed by Wheat (18%) and Cotton (16%).

• Among the various crops grown, the highest net returns per acre was realized from

cultivation of pepper (Rs.75,000), followed by ginger (Rs.71,284), fruits (Rs.70,334),

groundnut (Rs.44,321), and mulberry (Rs.38,227). The highest expenditure on cultivation

was incurred on pepper (Rs.1,59,375), followed by coffee (Rs.83,636), and ginger

(Rs.77,246). Relatively lower income per acre was registered from blackgram (Rs.12,327),

sugar cane (Rs.11,185), greengram (Rs.6,332), maize (Rs.6,197), coffee (Rs.5,060), redgram

(Rs.2,649), and jowar (Rs.431). It is quite significant to note that loss was incurred from

the cultivation of tobacco (Rs12,016/acre), ragi (Rs.741/acre), soyabean (Rs.301/acre)

and bajra (Rs.251/acre).

• At aggregate level, the highest net return per acre was derived from cultivation of fruits

and vegetables (Rs.1,00,172/acre), followed by oil seeds (Rs.71,392/acre). Loss was

incurred from the cultivation of oil seeds in Maharashtra (Rs.3,536/acre). Similarly loss

was also observed in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables in Karnataka (Rs.76,343/acre)

and Telangana (Rs.5,750/acre). At the time of survey, the victim HHs of Karnataka had not

realised yield from fruit crops and hence loss was reflected under fruits and vegetable

group.

• Credit was availed by the entire victim HHs and a majority of them borrowed from multiple

sources with the average borrowing being Rs.1.55 lakh and Rs.1.70 lakh from institutional

and non-institutional sources, respectively. Nearly 8 per cent of the institutional borrowing

and 39 per cent of the non-institutional borrowing was used for non-farming purposes. Per

cent of amount outstanding to the total credit availed was highest in borrowings from

traders and commission agents (162%), followed by landlords (108%), relatives and friends

(Rs.94%), and commercial banks (85%). The overall outstanding amount was to the extent

of 86 per cent of the total credit.

• Symptoms observed by family members before suicide indicated that 19 per cent of the

victims were not mingling, staying aloof from family members, 22 per cent were not

interacting with the community, 26 per cent were not friendly as usual with the neighbours,

27 per cent were not consuming food regularly and 30 per cent had inadequate sleep. These

70


symptoms were prominently visible in Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, WB, TN and Punjab as


5.1.2. Causes of farmer suicides

The decision to commit suicide by the victim cannot be attributed to a single reason. It was spur-

of-the-moment triggered action with respect to 70 to 80 per cent of victims. The final action of

committing suicide was a combination of several cumulative causes which can be grouped into

social, farming and debt-related.

Social Causes

• Drug/Alcoholic addiction (26%), Illness (18%), fall in Social reputation (17%), family

quarrel (16%), daughter’s marriage (11%) and extra-marital affair (8%) are the major social

causes opined by victim HHs across 13 sample states. Drug/Alcoholic addiction and Illness

was common major cause reported by victim HHs in all the sample states. Fall in social

reputation was reported as one of the main cause for suicide by all the sample states

except UP.

• Gambling was reported by 33 per cent of victim HHs in Kerala, 27 per cent in TN, 18 per

cent in Chhattisgarh, 8 per cent in MP and 2 per cent in Telangana.

• Family quarrel was also reported by all states except TN. Disputes in partition of income

was reported by 4 per cent of the victim HHs in Maharashtra and 2 per cent in Karnataka.

• It is to note that dowry was reported as a cause for suicide in TN (10%), AP (3%), and

Gujarat (3%) Telangana (2%) and Maharashtra (2%). Daughter’s marriage was reported in all

states except Chhattisgarh, UP and Haryana. Only in Punjab (3%) victim HHs have reported

divorce as one of the reason for suicide.

• Social autopsy results revealed that the opinion of neighbours/relatives/ friends regarding

social causes are in-line with the opinions of victim HHs.

Farming related causes

• Expectation of non-institutional credit and failure of rain was reported as major farming

related cause by 37 per cent and 36 per cent of the victim HHs, respectively. This is

followed by non-realisation of higher output (35%), non-realisation of higher price (33%),

lack of access to expected institutional credit (33%) and lack of irrigation (32%).

• The failure of crop during the two successive years (2014-15 and 2015-16) in the sample

states was considered as a major setback, which was responsible for suicides. Lack of

71


access to expected credit (70%), non-realization of higher output and prices (68%) and

crop failure (60%) were the major reasons for suicides. The failure of crops due to attack

of pests and diseases was reported by all sample states. Lack of access to irrigation water

was reported by all states except MP, Chhattisgarh, UP and Punjab. The HHs of UP reported

crop failure due to pest and diseases (30%) and cyclones (30%) as two causes for suicides.

• Cyclone was reported as one of the cause by Kerala (56%), UP (30%), AP (3%) and Karnataka

(0.9%). Drought was common cause in all states except UP, Punjab and WB. Inability to sell

the output was mainly reported by the HHs of the Kerala (59%). Well failure was reported

by 40 per cent of victim HHs in Telangana.

• Non-realisation of higher output was one of the major causes in all states except UP and

MP. Similarly, the non-realisation of higher prices was also the major reason in all states

except Chhattisgarh and UP. Telangana (68% of sample HHs expected higher output and

60% expected higher price), West Bengal (60% of sample HHs expected higher output and

60% expected higher price), Tamil Nadu (50% expected high output and 80% expected

higher price) and Kerala (52% expected higher output and 81% expected higher price) are

the prominent states where expectation of higher output and price reported as a major

farming related cause of farmer suicides.

• Failure to avail expected amount of credit was quoted as major cause in all the sample

states except Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Expectation of institutional credit was

highest in Tamil Nadu (80%), whereas expectation of non-institutional credit was highest

in Telangana (68%). Expectation of loan waiving was cited as a reason for suicide in West

Bengal (97%), Kerala (78%), Karnataka (67%) and Tamil Nadu (63%).

• Lack of extension services was highlighted as a farming related cause which was opined

by 73 per cent of victim HHs in West Bengal and 70 per cent in Punjab. Kerala (37%) is the

only state where high per cent of victim households committed suicide due to delayed

payment to the output sold. This cause was quoted by Karnataka (7%), Telangana (6%),

Andhra Pradesh (3%) and Haryana (7%).

Debt related issues

• Members of the victim’s household attributed causes of suicides to institutional loan (44%),

non-institutional loan (37%), pressure from money lenders (36%), non-agricultural loan

(28%), pressure from institutional sources (28%) and farm equipment loan (10%) were

major indebted related causes of suicides.

• Suicides committed due to institutional loan has been stated in Karnataka (87%), TN (77%),

Maharashtra (62%), Kerala (59%) and West Bengal (50%), whereas non-institutional loan in

Punjab (80%), Karnataka (71%), West Bengal (67%), Telangana (60%) and TN (50%).

72


• Pressure from institutional sources for repayment of loan was reported as major cause

for suicides mainly in TN (77%), Kerala (56%) and Karnataka (51%). Pressure from non-

institutional sources was majorly quoted in Karnataka (70%), Telangana (68%), Punjab

(63%), WB (57%) and TN (50%).

Ranking of social, farming and indebtedness related causes of suicides

• The foremost reason for suicides among 13 sample states include Indebtedness due to

crop loan (44.3%), indebtedness due to non-institutional loan (37.1%), expectation of

non-institutional credit (36.9%), recovery pressure from non-institutional sources (36.1%),

non-realisation of higher output (35.4%), non-realisation of higher prices (33.3%), lack

of access to expected institutional credit (33.1%), crop failure due to lack of irrigation

(32.2%), expectation of loan waiver (31.1%), Recovery pressure from institutional sources

(28.1%), indebtedness due to non-agricultural loan (27.5%), and drug abuse and alcohol

addiction (26.5%).

• State-wise major causes reported by the victim HHs widely vary across states. Crop failure

as a cause for suicide was reported in Haryana, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana, AP,

TN and UP. Indebtedness as one of the causes was seen in Maharashtra, Telangana, AP,

Karnataka, TN, UP, Punjab, Haryana and WB. Non-realisation of higher output and price

reported in Telangana, AP, Kerala, TN, and Haryana. Expectation of credit was opined in

Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, TN and Punjab. Expectation of loan waiving was opined in

Maharashtra, WB and Kerala.

5.1.3. Impact of farmer suicides on victim households and Suggestions offered by victim households to prevent farmer suicides

• Death of the bread winner was seen to have severely affected the HHs. This impact was

reported by 34 per cent of the HHs who mentioned that there was none in their family

to earn income. The land of such families was confiscated by the private money lenders.

Discontinuation of agriculture was another impact as seen in the case of 21 per cent of

the total HHs. Such situations were evident in West Bengal (63%), Haryana (57%) and Tamil

Nadu (53%).

• Insecurity in the family (33%) and family members under depression (25%) were among

the major impacts opined by victim HHs across states. Insecurity in the family was opined

majorly in TN (87%), WB (77%) and Telangana (58%), whereas family members under

depression were opined in TN (90%) and WB (80%).

73


• Interestingly none of the victim HHs in Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh gave up farming

practices due to the loss of family member. Overall, nearly eight per cent of victim

households sold the land after suicide.

• MP (36%), Kerala (15%), Telangana (18%) and Andhra Pradesh (13%) are the four states

where the victim HHs who sold land was in large number.

• Large number of victim households had discontinued their children’s education in Madhya

Pradesh (32%), Tamil Nadu (27%) and Gujarat (27%). Among other states, it ranged between

nil in Haryana to 17 per cent in Uttar Pradesh.

• The most prominent suggestions offered by the victim households to prevent farmer suicides

across states were: (i) Counseling, (ii) Provision of credit facilities, (iii) Crop Insurance

and compensation during crop failure, (iv) Creation of irrigation facilities, (v) Creation of

alternative income generating activities, (vi) Extension activities, (vii) Increasing MSP or

extending the MSP to crops for which it is not there and (viii) supply of quality inputs at

subsidized rates.

5.2. Policy Suggestions

5.2.1. Suggestions that can be implemented immediately

• Crop failure and collapse of income was found to be the root cause for farmer suicides.

Therefore, it is suggested that individual farmers should be brought under the ambit of

crop insurance programme. More intensively the state must ensure through the proper

policy framework that indemnity be paid within a week after reporting of the failure. Crop

Insurance payment provided months after the crop failure is by design pushes the farmer

into the debt trap of the moneylender.

• One of the main causes for crop failure was insufficient availability of water. Hence

judicious use of available water is needed. Groundwater recharge, rain water harvesting

and, de-siltation of ponds / tanks can ensure increased water supply. To avoid under- or

overuse of water to crops, farmers should carefully monitor the weather forecast, as well

as soil and plant moisture and adapt their irrigation schedule to the current conditions.

Farmers can participate in the construction of percolation ponds and check dams in their

surrounding areas both in private and common land. This helps to increase the availability

of water.

• Poor awareness among the farmers regarding scientific and improved methods of

cultivation is one of the reasons for crop failure. This may be addressed through proper

extension activities. Instances in Andhra Pradesh indicate that in the absence of adequate

74


extension services, most farmers were misled by the traders and were found using

pesticides indiscriminately. The farmers were also supplied with low quality seeds. Proper

measures to eliminate such practices has to be made. The Seeds Act, 2004, Insecticide

Act 1968, Pesticide Control Act, Fertilizer Control Order, be implemented very strictly and

the abettors be punished. Special extension efforts are needed towards capacity building

of farmers for usage of quality inputs and efficient options in production and marketing.

• Though, this problem is highlighted by Andhra Pradesh victim households, the possibility

of existence of such unscrupulous dealers in other states cannot be ruled out. Hence,

Government intervention in the supply of seeds and other agricultural inputs by establishing

fair price retail outlets in rural areas, where quality of inputs is assured is required.

• It is suggested by the victim households that Government should make policy to waive or

reschedule the outstanding amount of farmers loan whenever the crop fails due to natural

calamities. This will save the farmers from debt trap. The same suggestions were offered

in the Report of the Commission on Farmers’ Welfare (2005). The report mentioned that

the interest should not be charged for the period of current rescheduling. Whenever an

area is declared as drought-affected, interest should be waived, without changing other

terms of rescheduling (GoAP, 2005).

• Local money lenders are the main non-institutional sources who charge exorbitant rates

of interest and adopt harsh ways to recover borrowed amount. Farmers prefer to borrow

normally from institutional sources but they approach non-institutional sources only when

they are denied loans from institutional sources for various reasons. Hence the government

must implement stringent laws on informal lending through fixing a cap on the interest

rates equivalent to the institutional lending rates with sufficient monitoring.

• Release of loans in phased manner is needed. Thereby proper utilization of funds can be

ensured. Releasing of funds at one stretch (usually done in Kisan Credit Card) may result

in diversion of the borrowed amount to other activities rather than cultivation. Monitoring

of funds thus released is required to ensure proper utilization.

• Government may consider extending institutional credit without collateral security of

property for tenant farmers as well.

• The compensation was extended only to farmers who own land/lease in land (on record)

and have availed credit from institutional sources against land record. But the present

study reveals that a majority of the farmers borrow from non-institutional sources as they

are denied loans by institutional sources due to various problems pertaining to land records.

Thus, the victims who borrow from such sources can be considered for compensation if the

75


reason for suicide happens to be farming related and may also be covered under the ambit

of crop insurance.

• Though the study had not made an attempt to obtain the data on MSP received, a fair

majority of the victim households, at aggregate level, have mentioned that MSP does

not cover cost of production. This needs to be considered by CACP. CACP may review

the methodology for arriving at MSP considering explicit and implicit costs along with

reasonable profit margin. This was suggested by 84 per cent of the Telangana victim HHs

and 100 per cent victim HHs of Andhra Pradesh.

• The condition of the victim households was seen to be worsening after the suicide event

involving the main family member. Hence certain institutional mechanism for post suicide

welfare of the family is required.

• The victim families should be given preference in availing benefits of various developmental

schemes at least for a period of five years. Such schemes may also include social welfare

schemes of State and Central Government.

• NGOs, religious institutions and agriculture department should also be involved in providing

counselling to farmers to handle the distress situation through establishment of Farmer

Welfare Cell and Help Desk Services.

• Maximum number of suicides occur during kharif season and mainly among highly indebted

farmers, therefore help lines may be established based on the information on crop failure

and extent of indebtedness. The helpline may act as immediate relief providers for the

distressed through helping them in sourcing finance to meet the immediate needs.

• Programmes aimed at addressing the health issues of marginal, small and medium rural

households should be launched. One such scheme in operation was launched by Government

of Andhra Pradesh (Aroggyasree). This programme helped the rural households to overcome

their health issues. This may be taken up on priority basis in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh

and Gujarat as 46 per cent, 44 per cent and 27 per cent of the households, respectively

indicated illness as a cause for suicide in these states.

• The study noticed that around 58 per cent of the victim HHs were BPL families. Field

evidence shows that food grains supplied is insufficient. Hence, the quantum of food grains

supplied to BPL card holders needs to be at least doubled to ensure food and nutrition

security for the victim households.

• Higher incidence of suicides among BPL, AAY card holders and among OBC category

necessitates special focus on strengthening their weakness to cope with distress conditions.

76


Special counseling to women farmers in Telangana may be done since the state has

witnessed highest number of women farmer suicides.

• Higher number of farmer suicides was reported in resource rich districts of Karnataka,

whereas the resource poor (drought prone) districts exhibited relatively lesser number

of suicides. This might be due to the ability of farmers in resource poor regions to cope

up with the distress and their awareness of alternate choices. On the contrary, farmers

from resource rich areas are left with fewer options to take up. For instance, in command

areas, main crops were paddy and sugarcane and during water crisis, they hardly have any

other option to sustain the crop since techniques like drip irrigation and mulching are not

viable options. Hence capacity building on coping strategies should be given to resource

rich regions as well.

Suggestions that can be implemented over a span of time

• Regulating the informal credit market through licensing and fixing the norms for charging

interest rate and terms of lending is required. There is a need to create indemnity to non-

institutional borrowers. Radhakrishna Committee recommendations (2007) regarding rural

informal credit market be implemented, which underlines the need for mitigating the

burden of farmers’ indebtedness to money lenders. It recommends a one-time measure of

providing long-term loans by banks to farmers to enable them to repay their debts to the

money lenders. Further, it recommends that Panchayat Raj Institutions (PRIs), civil society

organizations like farmers’ collectives and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should

be involved in arriving at negotiated settlements with the Money lenders.

• Most of the victims HHs were not seen practicing crop and enterprise diversification.

Risk hedging through crop and enterprise diversification should be encouraged to reduce

farmers’ distress aiming at sustainable income.

• Establishment of farmers’ Welfare Fund / Farmers’ Welfare Department in every state is

the need of the hour to meet social consumption needs of farmers. The Central and State

Government should contribute to this fund. NABARD can also be roped into this scheme for

fund contribution. This has been suggested by Deshpande and Arora (2010), Bhende and

Thippaiah (2010) and Radhakrishna Report (2007) as well.

• Prime Ministers Rehabilitation Package may be reintroduced in the suicide prone states by

plugging the loopholes mentioned in the study by Bhende and Thippaiah (2010). The various

components of the package may aid the distress farmer to cope with the predicament.

77


• Farmers may include various effective water saving techniques in cultivation like drip

irrigation and protective cultivation as lack of water was mentioned by victim HHs in most

of the sample states.

• Most of the Cooperative banks of eastern region of Uttar Pradesh are bankrupt at present

and are not functioning. Hence, there is a need for its financial revival to eliminate the

illegal money lenders from remote rural areas. In this context, NABARD may provide the

financial help to cooperative banks.

• Fodder shortage was one of the issues of concern in Maharashtra. Most of the farmers were

compelled to sell their animals at low prices due to non-availability of fodder, thereby,

discontinuing livestock farming. Such a situation should not arise and there must be enough

fodder camps so that livestock farming is continued.

• It is also suggested that rural non-farm employment programme under MNREGS must be

enhanced.

• There should be a Compassionate Distress Consulting Officer at the Department of

Agriculture heading a special cell. This cell may be assigned with the responsibility of

counseling and financing the small ventures in the villages. This may be integrated with

the employment generating departments and agencies across states and nation as a

whole. It should encourage the farmers to start dairy, poultry, fishery and other livestock

activities.

• At aggregate level, 17 per cent of 528 victim households mentioned illness as cause of

suicide. The discussion with victim households of Madhya Pradesh amply highlighted the

lack of access to mental health services in rural areas. Hence, Primary health care and

support system to vulnerable farmers must be strengthened so that illness does not serve as

a trigger factor to an already indebted farmer. Without exception, the victim households of

all the states were honest enough to accept that victims were alcohol addicts. Therefore,

rehabilitation centre for drug abuse and alcohol addiction should be established.

• Health insurance programme for the farmers be enhanced not only covering the Government

Hospitals but should also include the private hospitals. A scheme like Employees State

Insurance (for industrial workers), called “Farmers’ State Insurance Scheme (FSIS)” that

will enable the farmer to seek medical treatment from the ESI hospitals may go a long way

(suggested by Deshpande and Arora, 2010).

78


Field visit - West Bengal

Suggestions that can be implemented in long run

• Failure of rain, attack of pest and disease leads to crop loss. This was reported as one of the

causes for farmer suicides across states. Prominent states among them are: Maharashtra,

Punjab, Haryana and West Bengal. Hence, there is a need to install automated weather

stations so that farmers are alerted on natural calamities and can take precautionary

measures. The Government of Maharashtra launched the Crop Pest Surveillance Project

(CROPSAP) during 2009-10. Though the scheme was not a huge success, further refinement

and proper measures in implementation can aid the farmers in suicide prone states.

• Another important request of victim households was to improve the access to market

within their reach. For instance, cotton is purchased at a few agricultural market centres

rather than at affordable distance by Cotton Corporation of India (CCI).

• Construction of large tanks, watersheds, de-siltation of community tanks and completion

of irrigation projects has to be given top priority so as to ensure water availability.

79


REFERENCES

Abraham, T. (2016). Baliraja Chetana Abhiyan helps arrest suicide rate in Yavatmal. Times of

India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Baliraja-Chetana-Abhiyan-helps-

arrest-suicide-rate-in-Yavatmal/articleshow/52333219.cms

Anneshi, R. and Gowda, N.K. (2015). An Economic Analysis of Rural Indebtedness of Farmer House

Holds: A House Hold Study in Davanagere District of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Research.

4(7), pp.285-287

Behere, P.B. and Behere, A.P. (2008). Farmer suicides in Vidharbha Region of Maharashtra State:

A myth or reality?. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 50, pp.124-127

Bhende, M.J. and P. Thippaiah. (2010). An Evaluation Study of Prime Minister’s Rehabilitation

Package for Farmers in Suicide-Prone Districts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and

Maharashtra, Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre (ADRTC), Institute

for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru.

Chhikara, K.S. and Kodan, A.S. (2014). Farmers’ Indebtedness in Haryana: A Study. Journal of

Rural Development. 32(4), pp.347-365.

Dandekar, Ajay and Bhattacharya, Sreedeep. (2017). Lives in Debt: Narratives of Agrarian Distress

and Farmer Suicides. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(21), pp.77-84.

Dash, A.P. (1998). Failure of Cotton Crop and Its Impact on Farmers, Vaikunth Mehta National

Institute of Co-operative Management, Pune.

Deshpande, R.S. and Saroj Arora. (2010). Agrarian Crisis and Farmer Suicide - Land Reforms in

India, Volume 12, New Delhi: Sage Publication.

Deshpande, R.S. (2002). Suicide by Farmers in Karnataka: Agrarian Distress and Possible Alleviatory

Steps, Economic and Political Weekly. 37(26), pp.2601-2610.

Dominic Merriott. (2017). Factors Associated with the Farmer Suicide Crisis in India”, Journal of

Epidemiology and Global Health, 6, pp.217– 227.

Devadas, V.S. and Sunil, K.M. (2014). Final Report of NAIP subproject “Multi Enterprise arming

Models to Address the Agrarian Crisis of Wayanad District of Kerala”. Kerala Agricultural

University, Thrissur.

80


Government of Andhra Pradesh. (2005). Report of the Commission on Farmers’ Welfare,

Government of Andhra Pradesh.

GoK. (2002). Farmers’ suicides in Karnataka - A Scientific Analysis (Report of the Expert Committee

for Study of Farmers’ Suicides.

GoI (2015). Economic Survey, 2014–15. http://indiabudget.nic.in/survey.asp, GoI. (2014). Spate

of cases of suicide by farmers. Intelligence Bureau, GoI. (2013). Debt and Investment Survey

NSS 70th round, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi.

Golait Ramesh (2007). “Current Issues in Agriculture Credit in India: An Assessment”, Reserve

Bank of India Occasional Papers. 28(1), pp 79-98.

Gupta, D. (2005). Whither the Indian Village: Culture and Agriculture in ‘Rural’ India. Economic

& Political Weekly. 40(8), pp.751-758.

Indiastat. 2017. https://www.indiastat.com

Kanthi, J. (2014). Economics of Agriculture and Farmers’ Suicides – A Case Study of Warangal

District in Andhra Pradesh. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Osmania University.

Kaviraj. S. (1984). On the Crisis of Political Institutions in India’, Contributions to Indian Sociology.

Kumar, N. (2017). Unraveling farmer suicides in India egoism and masculinity in peasant life,

Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Kumar, A. Singh, K.M. and Sinha, S. (2010). Institutional Credit to Agriculture Sector in India:

Status, Performance and Determinants. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 23,

pp.253-264.

Macharia, I. (2015). Determinants of farmers’ suicides in Andhra Pradesh: An analysis. International

Journal of Academic Research. 2(1), pp.81-87.

Meeta and Rajivlochan. (2006). Framers Suicide: Facts and Possible Policy Interventions.

Yashwant rao Chavan Academy of Development Administration. Maharashtra. Retrieved from

http://agrariancrisis.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2006-Farmers-Suicide-in-

IndiaYASHADA.pdf

Mohanty, B.B. (2014). Social Root of farmer suicides in Maharashtra. Gokhale Institute of Politics

and Economics, Pune. Retrieved from http://www.unipune.ac.in/snc/cssh/egp/6%20

Unpublished%20materials%20on%20EGS/14.pdf

Mohanty, B. B. (2013). Farmer Suicides in India. Economic & Political Weekly. 48(21), pp.45-54.

81


Mohanty, B.B. (2005). ‘We are like the living dead’: Farmer suicides in Maharashtra, Western

India, The journal of peasant studies, 35(2), pp.243-276.

Mohanty, B.B. and Shroff, S. (2004). Farmers’ Suicides in Maharashtra. Economic and Political

Weekly. 39(52), pp. 5599-5606.

Mohan Kumar, S. and R. K. Sharma. (2006). “Analysis of Farmer Suicides in Kerala”, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol. 41, No.16, April 22 - April 28, pp.1553-1558.

National Crime Records Bureau. (2015). National crime records bureau report 2014.

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2015/adsi-2014%20full%20report.pdf

National Crime Records Bureau. (2014). National crime records bureau report 2014.

http://ncrb.nic.in/ADSI2015/adsi-2014%20full%20report.pdf

NSSO. (2003). Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households: NSS 59th Round, National

Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi.

NSSO. (2005). 61st Round Survey Report, National Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi.

NSSO. (2013). Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households: NSS 70th Round, National

Sample Survey Organisation, New Delhi.

Nirmala and Annie, K. (2003). Market Imperfections and Farmers’ Distress in Andhra Pradesh

(Visakhapatnam: Agro-Economic Research Centre, Andhra University).

Radhakrishna, R. (2007). Report of the Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness, Banking

Division, Department of Economic Affairs, Government of India.

Government of Andhra Pradesh. (2005). Report of commission on Farmers Welfare.

RStv. (2017). SC raises concern over farmer suicides, questions Govt. approach.

http://rstv.nic.in/sc-raise-concerns-farmers-suicide-questions-govt-approach.html

Sarah Hebous and Stefan Klonner. (2014). Economic Distress and Farmers Suicides in India: An

Econometric Investigation, Dept. of Economics, University of Heidelberg.

Sidhu, Aman and Inderjit Singh Jaijee. (2011). Debt and Death in Rural India: The Punjab Story

(New Delhi: Sage Publications).

Singh, S., Bhogal, S. and Singh, R. (2014). Magnitude and Determinants of Indebtedness Among

farmers in Punjab. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 68(2), pp.243-256

82


Surinder Sud (2009). The Changing Profile of Indian Agriculture, Business Standard Books, ISBN

978-8190573559, pp.107-109.

Swaminathan, Mankombu S. (2010). From Green to Evergreen Revolution. Indian agriculture:

Performance and Emerging Challenges, New Delhi: Academic Foundation.

Swaminathan Committee on Farmers (2006), http://www.prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/report-

summaries/swaminathan-report-national-commission-on-farmers.

Vasavi, A. R. (2012). Suicides and the Predicament of Rural India. Shadow Space.

http://www.threeessays.com/books/shadow-space/.

Field visit - Telangana

83


ANNEXURE

Comments on Draft Report by

Centre for Management of Agriculture, IIM, Ahmedabad

The comments received on draft report from the Centre for Management of Agriculture, Indian

Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.

(i) Title of the Draft Study Report Examined


(ii) Date of Receipt of the Draft Report

June 19, 2017

(III) Date of Dispatch of Comments

July 4, 2017

(IV) Comments on the Objectives of the Study

The topic of the study is highly relevant in the current context. Against the backdrop of the alarming farmer suicides in India, the present study is attempting to analyse the extent of farmer suicides and the factors behind it. The study also analyses the socio-economic profile of the households, the cropping pattern and the profitability of the victim’s household. Among all the objectives listed, only analysis of the factors that is leading to farmer’s suicide had more of analytical content. So the study could have identified one or two more such objectives that have more of analytical content.

(V) Comments on the Methodology

The methodology is quite consistent with the study objectives. The primary data that is collected is quite extensive. The data is collected from 13 states that include 46 districts, 138 taluks, 388 villages and 528 victim households. Multi stage sampling technique was used in selecting the sample households. There were variations in the number of victim households selected from each state. For example, 107 from Karnataka and 14 from Haryana. It is better to include the reasons for this variation. Also are they proportional to the incidence of farmer suicides that took place in each state. Otherwise the sample will be biased.

84


(VI) Comments on the Presentation, Get up etc.

The report is very well structured and presented. The study is talking about various

government initiatives such as Prime Minsiter’s Rehabilitation Package (PMRP) Pradhan

Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) etc. in the report. However the study does not

make any analysis on the impact of these programmes in addressing the agrarian

distress. Neither study is discussing about it in the policy recommendation section.

Some discussions on the effectiveness of these programmes also will be useful.

The policy recommendation section of the report highlights that MSP received by the

farmers were not enough to cover the cost of production. However there is no data

on MSP received and the cost of cultivation at the household level. If any such data

is available, it would be good to include in the report and the data will substantiate

the argument that the MSP received is not covering the cost of cultivation. This is

especially important when we see that the net returns is much higher than the cost

of cultivation at the macro level in most of the states under study (chapter three the

graph (page 53)). The net returns and cost shows that the returns were higher than

the cost in most states except Karnataka and Maharashtra.

Minor comments

a. There is a typo on page 12 . (3rd paragraph). “”it is suggested by the victim households

that Government should make policy to waive or reschedule the outstanding amount

of farmers whenever” ..it is farmers loan.

(VII) Overall View on Acceptability of the Report

The report is an excellent attempt in terms of understanding the factors behind the

agrarian distress and farmer’s suicide in India. The report is well structured and the

data collected is very extensive. If feasible the study can shed some light into the

impact of government’s relief programme as well as the authenticity of farmer’s

view that the MSP does not over the cost of cultivation. Otherwise the report can be

accepted.

Action taken by the authors based on the comments received

All comments relavent to the objectives and methodology have been addressed at the

appropriate places in the report.

85


Field visit - West Bengal


Desi

gn b

y: d

ataw

orx,

Ben

galu

ru;

web

site

: w

ww

.dat

awor

x.co

.in

Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao Road, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru - 560 072 Phone: +91-80-23215468, 23215519; Fax: +91-80-23217008

Email: [email protected]; website: http://www.isec.ac.in

Agro-Economic Research CentreAgricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre

INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE

Documents

FARMER SUICIDES - Institute for Social and Economic Change all India study... · Farmer Suicides: An All India Study ” was carried out by Agro Economic Research Centre, Agriculture