The land of a zillion mouse-clicks is focused on the morbid these days. Suicides among the farming community are the subject of heated debate. The Silicon Capital is also doing its bit, and studies by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences attribute Bangalore’s high suicide rate of 35 per one lakh people (national average 11) to the spirit of Bacchus working overtime in the city of pub crawls and night-outs. It’s the all too familiar Indian imagery of the city-bred party-pooper contrasted against the poor farmer, both embroiled in their own struggle for survival. The odds may differ, with Gautier furniture and Dockers apparel holding up against parched soil and high-interest farm loans, but the net gain is the same: death. Among city-breds, most of those who attempted suicide were between 20 and 24 years old — and 27 per cent of these attempts were alcohol induced. But the raging debate, politically induced as it is, sidesteps this uncomfortable reality, and centres only around those who are entrusted with looking after all things that grow. Since April, of the 208 farmers’ deaths that have been reported, state government-appointed committees have so far investigated 156 cases: 93 aren’t linked to debt, 23 have been paid compensation of Rs 1 lakh, 20 await payment, 20 other cases are still being looked into. As for the big picture till August 31, the state recorded 6,667 suicides; last year saw 7,098, while in 2001 it was 6,584. With elections next year, the opposition is naturally taking note. Led by Deve Gowda himself, it has perhaps for the first time in four years of S.M. Krishna’s tenure managed to corner his government on the farmers’ plight. A Rs 880-crore farmers’ relief package and a hurriedly promulgated ordinance to punish money-lenders for extortion just about managed to bring Krishna’s social agenda back on track. Home Minister Mallikarjun Kharge accused the opposition of adopting Goebbelsian spin-doctoring tactics and doled out what he thought was convincing statistics: Of the 208 farmers’ deaths only 63 could be attributed to crop failure and the number of suicides so far was within the state’s yearly average of 6,000. Amid all these claims and counter-claims, our experience in reporting these unfortunate deaths has been revealing. Dispatches from all parts of the state had myriad stories to tell. Bereft of happy endings, their varied circumstances only provoked more questions. Who is a farmer? The agricultural labourer who toils in the parched fields of Gulbarga or the landowner with a farmhouse in one of Shimoga’s plentiful areca nut farms? And why are they committing suicide? Is it purely due to the extreme distress caused by huge debts or is it because of other social pressures? The defining lines in most cases have been blurred. Fifty-eight-year-old Gangappa of Gaddikaravinkop village in Belgaum had borrowed heavily to pay off previous debts. But low yields and subsequent crop failure due to drought stopped fresh loans. He was driven to suicide. A genuine case of a farmer’s suicide due to debt? Perhaps. But what about 60-year-old Mudalagiriappa of Honakere village in Tumkur district? He had borrowed Rs 25,000 from friends a long time ago for farming. Mid-way he lost interest in agriculture, took to drink and committed suicide. Where do we fit him in? Then we have the curious case of 55-year-old Hanumantharayappa of Devarayapatna village in Tumkur district. He was found hanging with a bottle of insecticide nearby. The family claimed he had borrowed Rs 1.5 lakh. Investigations revealed he had taken a loan of Rs 7,500 in 1991 and was issued a recovery notice in 1996. Post-mortem saw no traces of insecticide and ruled death due to hanging. Obviously, the lure of compensation forced the family to exaggerate the circumstances of his death. If there is anything definite about this tragedy, it is that it has many faces. It is a sad reality and perhaps even a greater tragedy that our politics makes it so easy for one group of elected representatives to trivialise human suffering with one sweeping generalisation after another, while the other set of House notables chooses to react only when prodded.
