In April this year, a 40-year-old farmer from Rajasthan had committed suicide at a political rally organised by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) against the Modi government's land acquisition ordinance.
News channels, social media, newspapers all reported the incident and it sparked a frantic round of political sparring in the middle of a national debate. There was accusation that the government's policies were 'anti-farmer'. But the controversy was short lived. Soon the entire attention was on the Indian Premier League (IPL) and no one cared about Gajendra anymore.
According to the figures from the Ministry of Agriculture, the total number of suicides committed by farmers for agrarian reasons in the last three years stands at 3,313.
If these suicides were not able to jolt the consciousness of our politicians and citizens, how this one that happened in a broad day light in the Capital of the country could have worried the nation for more than two-three days?
An article in the First Post argued whether farmers' suicides in India are hyped to divert funds, attract attention. It argues that farmer suicide is a tried template for targeted state spending. Rs 6,530 crore were spent in 2008 for agricultural debt waiver and debt relief schemes.
Five lakh rupees were given to each farmer in the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra to repay loans. There were substantial relief packages in 31 districts of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala where farmer suicides were reported.
Maharashtra enacted a stringent anti-money lending law in 2008, and soon made it illegal for unlicensed moneylenders to demand repayment of past loans. By 2012, Kerala too set up its debt relief commission.
It is projected that substantial amounts were spent for the benefit of farmers but the story on ground is different.
Small-holder farmers, considered vital for India's agriculture and rural economy, have received a cheque of two-hundred rupees as compensation. For them, compensation or no compensation, government's act doesn't really make a difference. Even if they have good growth, they are not the ones reaping benefits from it.
"The agricultural sector is a profitable profession. Traders, companies and other large interest groups are earning profit while we are bearing the losses continuously," rued Gajodhar, a forty-two year old farmer from Muzaffarnagar in Bihar reflecting upon the irony of agriculture in India today.
Giving the example of a tomato cultivator's plight, Gajodhar said, "We are forced to sell our produce for Rupees twenty per kilo, whereas after being processed into chutney, bottled, branded it is sold for Rupees eighty for 100 grams. Why does this happen? Nobody asked me before fixing a rate for my produce."
The role of policies at the state and global level reflected this apathy for agrarian communities. "Initially, the government encouraged use of fertilisers by giving subsidies and promising increased yield. But the result was the continuing need to increase the dose of fertilisers and water, ultimately leading to the depletion of soil fertility," said Ram Lachan Manjhi from Sitamarhi Bihar.
The lack of planning in Government's agriculture policies has not left farmers with many options. "On one hand, they want us to use organic manure and on the other, they provide subsidy on chemical fertilizers. It focuses on ground water conservation without providing irrigation facilities to farmers. How can it expect us to survive?" questioned Ombiri from Muzzafarnagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Clearly, there is a gap between the two - the farmers and the policy makers. The schemes and policies meant for them are not reaching the ones in need. Short term solutions are not going to help. Government needs to learn from several small initiatives that individual farmers are trying at their small farms and are showing great results using techniques of traditional farming.
The Charkha Development Communication network feels that if the Government really wants to help seventy per cent of population dependent on agriculture, it will have to do extensive homework and then apply it on ground to win back the trust of the farmers.
"I do not want my children to adopt farming as their livelihood source," rued Gajodhar and when asked who will do farming, he laughed and said, "Our government doesn't need farmers. It needs development."
It will be a tough task for the government to win back the trust of Gajodhar and his peers who opt to end their lives than rely on their elected government.
The views expressed in the article are of the author Vipin Joshi.
