Profession wise Suicide Reporting in India for 2014 opens Pandora's Box

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of India has now come up with its annual publication for 2014 on Accidental Deaths and Suicides in India (ADSI). There have been 1,31,666 suicidal deaths in 2014 that is less than that of 2013 when there were 1,34,799 suicidal deaths. It needs to be mentioned that these deaths are as per police records and, as indicated by the Global Burden of Disease following a study on Suicide Mortality in India in the Lancet by Vikram Patel et al, would be underestimates.

There have been some important changes in profession wise suicide reportage for 2014 and some of the professions are not comparable. For instance, in the earlier profession wise classification, the self-employed were indicated under four sub-categories (business, professionals, agriculture/farming, and others). In 2013, more than 21 per cent of the total suicidal deaths were self-employed [others] and any exercise to improve clarity would be welcome. 

In 2014, we have self-employed indicated under three broad sub-categories (business, agriculture, and others). Further, the first two sub-categories were further bifurcated such that for agriculture we have a category called self-employed [agriculture (agricultural labour)] and self-employed [agriculture (farmers)] with the latter being further sub-divided to those who own land and those who are on contract/lease. Instead of increasing the clarity, the new categorisation has added to the confusion. 

At the outset, one should feel that the category of self-employed [agriculture] of 2014 is comparable. to self-employed [agriculture/farming] of 2013 and earlier. But, a closer look indicates that they are not. This is so because the former also includes a category called self-employed [agriculture (agricultural labour)]. To an outsider it would give the impression that this category was included in the earlier reporting, but this should not be the case for the simple reason that agricultural labourers are not self-employed. This also means that this category should not be there in the 2014 classification under self-employed. Thus, raising the question about who they are.

In revenue terms, in some places, a person is not considered a farmer if the land is not in his/her name and this problem holds even if some other member of the household owns land. In some other places where land leasing is illegal, any reporting by the police could exclude tenancy. In places where tenancy was made legal (like West Bengal) this would not include sub-tenants. Thus, it is quite likely that a large proportion of the self-employed [agriculture (agricultural labourers)] are likely to be farmers who may not be considered as such in the police records. Thus, indicating that this exercise of new classification was done without a proper understanding.

One gets the impression that the purpose of the new classification was to provide a relatively lower number of farmers' suicides (5,650 in 2014 compared to 11,772 in 2013). However, if one takes the entire category under self-employed [agriculture] then the total number of suicides turn out to be 12,360. Even if one goes by the classification and interpretation taken by the Bureau then they should be worried about a relatively higher suicides among agricultural labourers (with 6,710 suicidal deaths).

One observes that the profession wise suicides have not been given for cities in 2014. This would have been important from the perspective of understanding the categories with relatively higher suicides and whether there has been a rural-urban divide for some of the non-agricultural professions.

The report gives additional information on farmers' suicides by causes and by their land holding status, which is also welcome. But, one fails to get the merit of providing causes as mutually exclusive when the various factors are interrelated, as discussed with regard to Farmers' Suicides in Maharashtra and elsewhere. To illustrate, an immediate cause because of family problems is likely to be inherently linked to livelihood failure. One also fails to understand its relevance because one of the disclaimers of the report is that "(t)he causative factors ... are not being captured by the Bureau." In addition, the rare event that suicides are, a classification by land size has to be carefully interpreted from a statistical perspective.

[Added on 24 July 2015: Today the Minister of Agriculture in a reply in the Rajya Sabha to a question on farmers' suicides indicated that impotency and love affairs are some of the causes. This ignores the disclaimer by NCRB. This also made me add a sentence from Suicide of Farmers in Maharashtra (footnote 24, page 37) quoting AA Leenaars that causative factors are complex because of the following example: “A 16-year-old was found dead in a car, having died of carbon monoxide poisoning. People were perplexed: “Why did this young person from an upper-middle-class family kill himself?” The parents found out that his girlfriend had rejected him the day of his suicide. That was the reason: … A few friends and his teachers knew that he had been having problems in school. That was the reason. A few others knew that his father was an alcoholic and abusive. That was the reason. His physician knew that he had been adopted and had been recently upset about that. She knew the real reason. And others knew…”]

Outside agriculture, some professions with relatively higher incidence of suicides are students (8,068 suicidal deaths and largely around the time when results are declared in the final examinations), unemployed (9,918),  or that among daily wage earners (a new category with 15,735 suicidal deaths). Of course, it would help if one could noramlise with appropriate population numbers before comparing.

Another welcome addition in the new report for 2014 is a discussion on suicides among Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). An obvious question on this is why was this restricted to the central forces alone and not extended to the state forces as also the army or was that collected and deliberately being withheld. The suspicion arises because suicides by those in the state police forces would be the easiest to collect by the Bureau and obtaining such data from the armed forces should also not be difficult.

   

The gender wise classification provides data for transgenders for the first time and the Bureau needs to be appreciated for this. However, it would also help in the larger understanding if the Bureau could consider providing unit level data. Of course, they should take care to not reveal the identity of the individuals, but this should not prevent putting in place cross-checks by independent organisations and scholars to improve data validity.

What is more, despite the new classification, there are 41,216 suicidal deaths (that is, more than 31 per cent of suicidal deaths) that are categorised under the profession 'Others'.  This needs to be improved. In any further exercise to improve classification, the Bureau could benefit from an earlier note on Suicide Mortality Rates across States in India or the more recent exercise on appropriate reporting and measurement of Farmers' Suicides in India.

To sum up, the latest reportage of suicides in ADSI 2014 by the Bureau is an underestimate. In addition,  the new profession wise reporting reduces comparability and lacks clarity.

Financial Crisis, Mental Health and ...

The current financial meltdown, with its epicenter in the United States, has been having serious global repercussions. The 30-share sensitive index (Sensex) of the Bombay Stock Exchange which had peaked to 21,206.77 in January 10, 2008 has fallen to 7,697.39 at 1330 hours before stabilizing at 8509.56 by the end of the day on October 27, 2008. On the eve of Diwali (October 28, 2008), this belies hope.

This will have serious implications on the mental health of the population. Particularly so, for those directly involved in the financial/stock market. There are already indications that sale of over-the-counter anti-depressants have increased. A possible fallout is increase in incidence of self-harm (suicides). The earlier East Asian Crisis and earlier financial crisis are witness to such occurrences. In India, as well as elsewhere, the public health system, the medical fraternity (particularly Psychiatrists) and other civil society groups like The Samaritans, Mumbai. Sooner or later such incidences would come to the media's notice. Before reporting, they should have a look at the World Health Organization's Preventing Suicides: A resource for Media Persons.

True, despite the unprecedented fall in the Sensex, the levels are still around what was reigning in October 2005. Some say, the correction was necessary, as the higher levels was more on account of an hype in the financial sector, rather than being in sync with good fundamentals in the real sector. It is the unregulated greed that has led to this situation.

A question that comes to mind is why such a fall would be associated with mental health leading to self-harm. An anecdote cited in some discussions on farmers' suicides would help. A farmer while comparing his situation to that of a labourer indicated that the latter has been living under dire circumstances, and of course needs attention, but our situation is akin to a fall in level. Recourse to self-harm is complex and multifaceted. But, if reductions in level is one of the risk factors then this is definitely the case with the current financial crisis.

It is also worth mentioning that the current financial crisis, the ethnic strife that one sees within the country as also elsewhere in the world, and the larger agrarian crisis which manifested in a food crisis globally are not independent occurrences. They are part of the larger scheme of things, which as some commentators say, involves displacement of people as well as displacement of ideas.

The agrarian/food crisis and the ethnic strife do reflect that something is fundamentally wrong in the real sector; it is not people-centric. The problem was accepted, but instead of addressing the problem the solutions tried to address the symptoms. Or, to put it in a different perspective, the emphasis was on means rather than the ends. To conclude, one would state "Business as usual is no longer an option." (IAASTD)

PS: The Interactive Panel of the United Nations General Assembly on the Global Financial Crisis, 30 October 2008, United Nations Headquarters had presentations by Joseph Stiglitz, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Prabhat Patnaik, Pedro Páez, Calestous Juma, and François Houtart.

Agrarian Crisis and Farmers’ Suicides in India

The larger agrarian crisis has two dimensions. On the one hand, there is a livelihood crisis that threatens the very basis of survival for the vast majority of small and marginal farmers as also for agricultural labourers. On the other hand, there is an agricultural developmental crisis that lies in the neglect of agriculture arising out of poor design of programmes and allocation of resources and having resulted in declining productivity and profitability. This twin dimensions could also be equated with the developmental discourse where the former is about displacement of people and the latter is about displacement of ideology. The outcome is that planning is not people-centric.

In monsoon India, abundance or paucity of water has always been considered as a major source of agricultural uncertainty. Today, this yield risk could also be because of spurious inputs or inappropriate use of technology. Increasing costs, price volatility, non-availability of credit from formal sources and other risks further compound it. Social responsibility of education, healthcare and marriage instead of being normal activities add to the burden. All these would even put the semi-medium farmer under a state of transient poverty.

An extreme response to this distress is the increasing incidence of farmerss suicides. Between 1995 and 2006, more than 190,000 farmers have committed suicides, 83 per cent of these being males. The suicide mortality rate (SMR, suicide death for 100,000 persons) for male farmers increased from 10.5 to 19.5 whereas that of male non-farmers has more or less remained around 13. The major states with SMR for male farmers greater than the all India average of 18 during 2001-06 are Kerala (233), Maharashtra (53), Chattishgarh (47), Karnataka (39), Andhra Pradesh (35), Tamil Nadu (31) and West Bengal (21). It is to be reiterated that suicide is a symptom of the larger crisis, and its absence does not in any way indicate the absence of a crisis.

It is only in Kharif 2008 that one observes a substantial increase in the minimum support prices of the 16 major crops. In fact, the absolute increase would be almost equal to increments in the entire decade. Though welcome, this vindicates the established fact that returns to agriculture had turned out to be abysmally low. Per-capita per day returns to farmer households from cultivation in 2002-03 was eight rupees. Another recent public policy intervention has been the Rs.70,000 crore debt waiver package. This is just a book keeping exercise and at best will reduce the burden from formal sources. Indebtedness, like suicides, is another symptom.

Risk mitigation has to go beyond suicides and debt. What is more important is to spruce up public investments that will increase returns to cultivation. Skill enhancement and linking of opportunities to local resources are required to increase non-farm income. Success of the credit and input markets require effective regulation. There is a case of encouraging technological and financial products that would reduce costs while increasing returns. Institutions that can organize farmers are required.

My earlier blog on a related theme is Indian Agriculture in Doldrums.


Selected Readings:

Bhaduri, Amit (2008), Predatory Growth, Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (16), 10-14.

Government of India (2007), Report of the Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness, Chairman: R Radhakrishna.

Mishra, Srijit (2007), Agrarian Scenario in Post-reform India: A Story of Distress, Despair and Death, Orissa Economic Journal, 39, (1 & 2), 53-84. IGIDR Working paper version is WP-2007-001.

Mishra, Srijit (2008) Risks, Farmers’ Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There a Way Out? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63 (1), 38-54. IGIDR Working paper version is WP-2007-014.

Reddy, D. Narasimha and Srijit Mishra (eds.) (2008) Agrarian Crisis in India, Oxford University Press, forthcoming.

This is the abstract of a presentation at a one day international seminar, “Environmental degradation and food crisis – Lessons for India” being organized by Greenpeace India on 24 October 2008 at India International Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, India.

Indian Agriculture in Doldrums

A farmer is one of the biggest entrepreneurs. The farmer takes risks against the vagaries of nature. Agriculture’s association with the ups and downs in monsoon is captured by the Oriya saying “pani bahule shrushti nasha, pani bihule shrushti nasha” (abundance of water destroys life, paucity of water destroys life). The farmer has taken the challenge head-on and it is this risk-taking ability that has been ensuring food and nutritional security for millions. This act of giving, has however, cost the farmer a lot. Returns to cultivation are low at less than eight rupees per person per day in 2002-03 (Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers (SAS), 2003), which is less than half-a-litre of bottled water. The risk-taker is under despair; result, an increase in the incidence of farmers’ suicides.

Between 1995 and 2006, as per the National Crime Records Bureau, 190,732 farmers committed suicide – 84 per cent of these being males. During this period, the suicide mortality rate (suicide deaths for 100,000 persons) for male farmers has increased from 9.7 to 18.2 whereas the suicide mortality rate for male non-farmers increased marginally from 12.5 to 13.7 (Figure 1). Across major states, the high incidences in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala and Maharashtra have been highlighted by the media and there have also been public policy initiatives to address this. It is of concern that the relatively higher incidences in Chattishgarh and Tamil Nadu seem to have gone unnoticed.

Suicide, a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, is a rare event. Nevertheless, relatively higher incidence among a sub-group of population is indicative of a larger socio-economic malaise. It is symptomatic of a larger agrarian crisis. This crisis, as the Report of the Expert Group on Agricultural Indebtedness prepared under the chairmanship of R. Radhakrisha for the Government of India in 2007 indicates, has twin dimensions. First, is the livelihood crisis, which threatens the lives and sustenance of those dependent on it. In particular, the large mass of small and marginal farmers and the agricultural labourers. The second aspect is the agricultural developmental crisis. It is an outcome of a cumulative neglect and failure in the designing of programmes and in the allocation of development and plan resources.

Some of the current features of the crisis are the following. Agricultural production and productivity has decelerated for almost all crops from the mid-nineties and a value of output from agriculture has declined from the late nineties. Large sections of the population continue to be dependent on agriculture (56 per cent of the usual principal and subsidiary status employment in 2004-05). Non-farm employment opportunities are limited. Increasing marginalization of holdings (63 per cent are with less than one hectare as per the agricultural census of 2000-01). Decline of public investments in irrigation and other related infrastructure. Focus of green revolution on irrigated rice-wheat is suggestive of the failure of research and extension for crops and regions under rainfed or dry land conditions, which account for nearly three-fifths of the net sown area. Supply of credit from formal sources to the agricultural sector is inadequate leading to greater reliance on informal sources at higher interest burden. With changing technology and market conditions the farmer is increasingly being exposed to the uncertainties of the product as well as factor markets.
Today, the farmer is faced with yield, price, income, input, technology and credit risk among others. Production or yield loss could be because of weather, pests, disease of plants and spurious quality of inputs. This can adversely affect the consumption requirements of many farmer households. With the integration of global markets the price volatility has increased. The conventional argument that price compensates for good/bad monsoon, and hence, local supply/demand is not much relevant.
The farmers are price-takers in the product as well as in the input markets. Over the years, increasing costs and decreasing profitability has reduced returns. As indicated earlier, returns to farmer households from cultivation in 2002-03 was less than eight rupees per person per day. With such low returns, saving for carrying out next year’s cultivation or for meeting normal social obligations like education, healthcare or life-cycle ceremonies turn out to be taxing.
Adequate and timely availability of credit is a critical matter. As per SAS 2003, from the total outstanding debt at the end of June 2002, nearly three-fifths are for agricultural purposes. Two-fifths are from informal sources with a greater interest burden. Non-payment, which is largely on account of crop failure, would further escalate the interest burden. More so, because the informal credit provider would have dominance in the larger socio-economic sphere with a possibility of interlinked contracts in the input and output markets. Absence of non-farm avenues and poor public facilities on health and education further add to the woes.
To address the various possible risks, alternative techniques of production as well as financial and insurance products are being put forth. Most of these end up adding to, rather than reducing, the risk. An illustration is given as follows (Table 1). In a given technology input cost is one unit whereas output is three units. Thus net returns are two units and with a consumption of 1.3 units the individual can save 0.7 units. With a crop failure in the fourth year the existing risk mitigation strategy draws upon the cumulative savings to pay for the input costs and also helps consumption at a slightly reduced level. Now suppose there is a new technology where input cost is three units and output is six units giving a net return of three units. The farmer now increases consumption to 1.8 units and in the spirit of enterprise increase savings to 1.2 units. In such a scenario, a crop failure in the fourth year would render a much lower level of consumption. In short, though net returns are much higher in the new technology during normal years it increase risk during bad years. This is so because they add to the cost much more than they add to the returns.

Table 1: Comparing Old Versus New Technology: An Illustration
Year	Old Technology, T0					New Technology, T1
	X0	Y0	R0	C0	S0	X1	Y1	R1	C1	S1
1	1	3	2	1.3	0.7	3	6	3	1.8	1.2
2	1	3	2	1.3	1.4	3	6	3	1.8	2.4
3	1	3	2	1.3	2.1	3	6	3	1.8	3.6
4	1	0	-1	1.1	0	3	0	-3	0.6	0
Note: X=Input, Y=Output, R=Net Return, C=Consumption, S=Cumulative Savings. The subscript 0 and 1 denote old and new respectively.

Given the low levels of income that the farmer gets from cultivation, the call of the hour is to bring about an intervention or a mix of products where costs should reduce and returns should increase. From a policy point of view, low returns to agriculture, declining profitability and absence of non-farm opportunities need to be addressed. Appropriate research and extension, water availability to facilitate diversification and providing adequate and timely credit would be of great help. Organising farmers in a federated manner that could be aggregated at village, taluka, district or state would facilitate them in increasing their bargaining powers. Activities of private players should be regulated and civil society should complement the efforts of the public institutions.
For elaborate discussion on some of the above issues the readers may have a look at a working paper on Risks Farmers' Suicides and Agrarian Crisis in India: Is There a Way Out? or its revised version published in the Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63 (1), January-March 2008. Another related working paper is Agrarian Scenario in Post-reform India: A Story of Distress, Despair and Death.
(An earlier version of this write-up has been published in the Industry & Mines Observer, May 01-15, 2008, 3-5.)