Farmers’ Income: Will India be

able to double it in next 5 years?

The agriculture based Indian Economy needs high agriculture income for the farmers who feed the 1.25 billion Indian
population. Not only this like developed countries who despite having much lesser area under cultivation, export
number of farm products, India also needs to be a prominent exporter of agriculture produce. This will attract more and
more people towards agriculture, the backbone of the country.

Last opportunity for MBA Admission 2019

SOIL 1 Year PGPM

XIME Admissions 2019 Wellingkar Admissions 2019
Admissions
IFIM Bangalore Admissions Bennett University Admissions
GITAM ADMISSIONS 2019
2019 2019
SDA Bacconi Admissions Chetna Mumbai Admissions
SSN Chennai Admission 2019
2019 2019
But how to achieve the dream of substantially increasing the farm income is a big question. The Prime Minister of India,
Shri Narendra Modi in his independence day speech on August 15, 2017 laid out the route map to double the
agriculture income in next 5 years.

Key points: How to double the farmers’ income- the road map
 The Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that his government has decided to double the farmers’ income by
2022 when India would celebrate 75 years of Independence
 The goal is achievable if the farmers adopt and use modern technology in cultivation like drip irrigation as it
will direct the maximum utilization of water with minimum quantity. The Prime Minister said “Water is like God, we have
no right to waste it.”
 The focus will then be on “More crop per drop”, “Hark khet ko pani” (water for every farm), “Doubling
farmers’ incomes”.
 Laying the route map to double the farmers income, the Prime Minister said “Centre has decided to double
farmers’ income by 2022 by improving technology, increasing milk production, use of solar light, honey production.
 Increase afforestation by planting more trees along the river banks to avoid soil erosion during floods and to
keep the rivers flowing eternally without getting them dry as has been done by Government of Madhya Pradesh by
organizing the Narmada Yatra. This way Narmada would not go dry even after 100 years.
 The Niti Aayog has already come out with its ‘Three Year Action Agenda’ – a plan that covers a time period up
to the 2019. In its chapter on agriculture titled ‘Agriculture: Doubling Farmer’s Incomes’, the economic think-tank has
put forth a 4 point action plan to double the incomes of India’s farmers.
 The measures proposed are in the right direction if the farmers’ incomes have to be doubled. The 4 point
action plan includes the following measures: 1) Remunerative prices for farmers by reforming the existing marketing
structure; 2) Raising productivity; 3) Reforming agriculture land policy; and 4) Relief measures.
 A subsidy would be provided on targeted produce in case the price falls below MSP-linked threshold. One
advantage of this, as highlighted by the action plan, is that it would spread price incentives to producers in all the
regions and all the crops considered important for providing price support.
 As per the Agriculture Census 2010-11, 67.10% of India’s total farmers are marginal farmers (below 1 h.a.)
followed by small farmers (1-2 h.a.) at 17.91%. Since Indian agriculture is dominated by marginal farmers who have
small holdings, raising productivity is likely the single most important factor if incomes of this group are to be doubled.
 Niti Aayog has also called for substantive investment in irrigation, seeds & fertilisers and new technology
coupled with a shift into high-value commodities such as horticulture, poultry and dairying to double incomes.
 A major portion of farm subsidies is accounted by India’s fertiliser subsidy which has increased by around five
times in the last ten years from Rs 12, 595 crore in 2001-02 to Rs 67, 971 crore in 2012-14 at current prices. In 2015-
16, the government budgeted Rs 73,000 crore (about 0.5% of GDP) on fertiliser subsidy. While the Niti Aayog has called
for the application of soil cards for customising fertiliser use, the Economic Survey of 2015-16 pitched for reforms to
increase domestic availability via less restrictive imports and to provide benefits directly to farmers using ‘JAM’ (Jan
Dhan, Aadhaar, mobile).
Income to increase with Israel model
The Prime Minister Modi’s Israel visit has placed a heavy stress on agricultural cooperation. The government’s stated
 aim is to double farmers’ incomes by utilizing the Israel model. It is felt that Israeli agriculture and irrigation
technologies can help deliver this goal. Israeli technology is vital for this aim and thus encapsulates the government’s
thinking on how to raise agricultural productivity and thereby increasing the farmers’ income.

What is Israel model?

Israel’s water management system is second to none. When the nation was founded in 1948 it realized that it was
severely water stressed. 60% of the land in Israel was desert and the annual rainfall was 50 cm. There are no such
rivers like Ganga, Yamuna, Kaveri, Brahmaputra, Godavari, Narmada, Betwa in Israel nor there is any chance of water
sharing in neighborhood. Rainfall has fallen to half the level of 70 years ago while the population has grown 10 fold
according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz. Israel thus had to come up with innovative water solutions to increase its
agriculture production manifold with the scarce water it has.
Centralized Water Management: Solution found
Israel had to find the solution to the crisis and the result is a centralized water management grid, developed over the
decades to make maximum use of water. The major strategy of the solution is drip irrigation. Instead of flooding fields,
water is delivered directly to the crop/plants roots in small quantities.

Indian Agriculture far behind with excessive or no water

A quick comparison of Israel model to Indian agriculture will surprise us all. Only a small portion of Indian agriculture is
irrigated, mostly through canals. The canal network is most extensive in North India, particularly Punjab, Haryana and
Northern Rajasthan, and relies on excessive use of water, leading to water stress and overuse.

The farmers in these regions think that if more water is delivered to their fields, the higher will be the productivity. This
attitude is being severely challenged by changing water patterns due to overuse and climate change.

Israel Technology can help here

This is where the government thinks Israeli technology can help by following the strategy of Israel:
 The Middle Eastern nation recycles 90% of sewage and the recycled water is used for agriculture.
 Plants have been engineered to grow in arid conditions and sea water is desalinated for human use.
 Israeli firms have the technological know-how while Indian partners know how to navigate the complex
bureaucratic maze here
 Israel’s government has committed Rs 500 crore which the Indian government may match to adopt Israel
model and increase farm income with less expenses and optimum use of water.
 The Israeli experience with collectivized farming has become a template for a plan that is being pushed by
National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD). A Kibbutz is an Israeli collective community based on
agriculture while a Moshav is a cooperative agricultural community. Both these are being explored as templates for
“farmer-producer” companies by NABARD.
Hurdles
 One of the main problems of Indian agriculture is the small size of land holdings.
 Corruption in cooperatives is a well-known problem, particularly in Maharashtra. Besides, the government
does not have the money to pump into co-ops.
 Various experts have cast a pall of gloom over the claim whether it is indeed possible to double incomes by
2022-23. This is primarily because agricultural growth in the post-reform period, barring a few exceptional years, has
been stagnant and has historically failed to meet the target set by the government. For example the average annual
rate of growth in agriculture and allied sector during the period from (1991-92 to 2013-14) comes at 3.2% – lower than
the targeted 4%.
 Niti Aayog has suggested reforms in two areas: marketing reforms and minimum support price (MSP) reform.
It is important to see how the suggested actions will double the income of the farmers’ and to what extent the
government is serious about it.
 It must be noted here that since agriculture is a state subject, the central government cannot do much in
marketing reforms and minimum support price (MSP) reform apart from facilitating the reform process.
 On the one side resources like water and land are limited and on the other hand land holding is getting
fragmented. The problem is further compounded by rising input costs.
Action taken so far to increase farmers’ income
The government and NABARD are keen to push farmer-producer companies where a large group of farmers pool their
land together and work as a collective. They could be registered as a non-profit, company or trust, would produce
business plans and access capital from formal banking channels.
Maharashtra has already asked the Israeli Consulate in Mumbai to prepare a plan for establishing a farmer-producer
collective in Dehni village in Yavatmal district, which has one of the highest incidences of farmer suicides.
India has already adopted drip irrigation in some parts of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Haryana. An article in Forbes India
in 2010 reported that the Israeli firm Netafim, the world’s largest micro-irrigation company, indigenized its Family Drip
System (FPS) for mainstream farming in India. Drip irrigation is now available for farms that are as small as a quarter
acre.
Indian and Israel governments hope to take the partnership forward by providing a government to government
framework that would enable corporate partnerships to flourish.

Mammoth task
Doubling agricultural income by 2022 is a mammoth task but is also one that is the need of the hour. With majority of
the country’s population dependant on agricultural activities, no true development can be said to be meaningful unless
it incorporates the needs of this sector. Increasing farmer suicide rates and increasingly erratic weather patterns
further add to the problem. There are intense complexities and therefore, the focus of the government on this sector is
much needed. The journey to double the farmers’ income is a long and very tedious but the journey has begun. The
need is to ensure that the implementation in right direction by all stakeholders is uniform, effective and done whole
heartedly. Read More GD Topics

hamarai Selvan B said: (Jul 29, 2019)

Farmers income will increase if they do export of the demand crops of other countries, but now we are not able to do because of the high
demand of our country on crops. Demand can be reduced by full filling our needs on crops by ourselves by doing backyard farming.
Eventhough, we not able to cultivate all crops some what we able to manage the demand 40 to 50 percent.
 Rate this: +0 -0

Onkar said: (Jul 25, 2019)

Farmers income will double in the next 5 years. When they start NATURAL FARMING.

Due to chemical fertilizers the soil becoming unfertile. The food which farmers cultivate from chemical farming is similar to poison. It also
effects our health.

So, I think if farmers start NATURAL FARMING then and then the income will double because in natural farming as compared to chemical
farming the investment is less. Of course, the result of natural farming is positive but it requires time as more than 3 years to become soil
fertile.

Rate this: +1 -0

Ramkush Maurya said: (Jul 9, 2019)

The way, the situation of farmers are going to treat can not lead the same. We can see the problems of farmers are growing day by day
whether it is a shortage of money, water resources, seeds and fertilizers or insecticides.

After these all, the value (coast) of their crops are not as much as they can be get satisfied.

After seeing these situations we can't say that in the next five years the farmer's income could be double.

Rate this: +1 -0

Divya said: (Jul 5, 2019)

A farmer who raises only crops will be responsible for preparing land for planting, caring for the crops and harvesting. In India's Agriculture
Problem: Lack of Access to Credit is one of the most pressing issues that hinder India's rural population from progress. It means the lack of
access to credit by a farmer. Bring life into the world every day. Farmers get the opportunity to watch cows, ewes, and sows give birth on a
daily basis. The farmers assist them if they need help with the birth process and love them every day after they are born!Once the crops are
mature, the farmer will harvest them. Farmers need resources to grow food. They need many different types of resources. Reasons. Various
reasons have been offered to explain why farmers commit suicide in India, including: floods, drought, debt, use of genetically modified seed,
public health, use of lower quantity pesticides due to less investments producing a decreased yield. They don't get what they spend for
cultivation.

Rate this: +6 -1

Preethi@@@ said: (Feb 2, 2019)

Definitely, it will double because farmers are most hard working people in our country. Hard workers achieve their development in future.

Rate this: +9 -21

Naveena D said: (Jan 12, 2019)

Good Morning Friends,

According to me, farming is backbone of our country. If it is not, we cannot live in the world. But in this generation peoples are not able to
understand about the farming culture. Because farming process is going to be unconditional level in India.

Technology will increase day by day. So we are accepting this life. But farming will be grow to next level. We are supporting farming and
farmers. This is very important economic in our India. So, farmer's income is double it in next five years. And also improve our farming culture
using technology development.

Thank You.

Rate this: +13 -3

A.Gayathiri said: (Dec 23, 2018)

Hii friends,

Farmers income will rise one day when a man realizes that it is not a job it is a necessary thing. Now all are encouraging farmer but we don't
know the value for farmer's job.
 In upcoming years, the person with farming land is the richest man. So the farmer's position will change one day. Youth move their footprints to
do farming.

So all of you.

" Try to do farming or just stay with the farmer To learn farming".

Rate this: +20 -6

Sanju said: (Dec 15, 2018)

I extremely agree with the fact that farmers are the backbone of India and the economy of our country.

Yes, India can double their income if the ministries and govt insist. Even though the farmers are bothered about their income they are too busy
in doing their crops. Then who will fight for them?! Who is gonna force the government to recognize their efforts and struggles? This is the only
question I ever knew that remains long lasting since so long. Imagine if all their struggles suggest them to take some poision and end their
lives themselves? who else gonna farm? There is no nepotism when it comes under this particular thing called FARMING! I think it is the best
solution that can be provided by THE GOVT OF INDIA to double their income (not expenses of course). Atleast it helps to manage some of
their issues. And GOVT should keep this in mind to not to cease the farming acres and places in the name of ROADS, CONSTRUCTIONS
AND DEVELOPMENT. And the people of urban areas should be grateful and supportive towards THE FARMERS.

Rate this: +8 -3

Sakthiraja M said: (Dec 12, 2018)

Formers has backbone of the nation because there are many formers has to given to the food so former very important for the nation and
world.

Rate this: +3 -7

Lalitha said: (Dec 2, 2018)

We all know that the farmer is a backbone to our country. Yes, It's doubled. If Government treated them with care and responsibility as they
take their part to avoid the corruption. Lack of knowledge about technology changed in the farming, a farmer also loses their confidence and
go to other parts of the country for their surveillance or leaving this world by suicides.

This will be eliminated by us since this is our nation. Every individual has to take the responsibility to aware the farmers about the technology
in farming and cultivation. Even the government can change their policies towards farmers if we are with one voice since that government is
built by each and every person in this country. If we are providing such a support and respect over the farmers they felt confident and do their
job to the country. This is my opinion, Thank you.

Rate this: +6 -3

Deepu said: (Oct 4, 2018)

Farming is an age-old activity that has achieved the title of the backbone of India.

Certainly, farmers income can be doubled in the coming years. First of all, let's analyze the sources of a farmer's income:

1. Crops.
2. Vegetables.
3. Dairy.
4. Flowers.

The major part of income is from cultivation. Of course increase of MSP is a viable solution but other alternatives could be providing
subsidized fertilizers and seeds, encouraging scientific farming and discouraging the participation of middlemen in producing the harvested
crop to the market. Government policies should focus on maximizing their reach to the farmers. Benefits of scientific farming should be made
known to farmers and optimum use of the available land for cultivation should be taught. Instead of growing one crop, mixed cultivation can be
given a thought so that a farmer earns money from both primary and secondary crops (flowers or vegetables) grown in the same land at the
same time. Schemes like made in India can widen their scope by encouraging local handlooms and crafts and providing incentives to farmers
to take up the plantation required to meet the demands of the local craft industry. Involvement of middleman can be checked by digitalization
such as launching apps that directly make farmers meet their customers and are rightly paid for their judicious efforts.

The government can plan to set up dairy centres in a group of villages thus encouraging farmers to take up dairy activities and at the same
time making India self-sufficient in dairy production. Schemes to provide farmers with cow 9at cheaper rates) can be a boon.

Thus with the aforementioned strategies and digitalization, we can certainly achieve the goal of increasing farmers income.

Thank you!

Rate this: +32 -2

Shivam said: (Oct 2, 2018)

Farming is the fundamental block of economy in our country, farmers work in the field throughout the year in harsh weather conditions in hope
of good yield, but in some cases weather does not co-operate with them so government should help the farmer by should decrease farming
tax and provide free electricity for farming purpose so if government Will able to give double income to farmer it's very good for farmer and also
for the country in a path of substantial and developed nations.

Rate this: +8 -7

Ashish Goundharya said: (Sep 14, 2018)

Yes, I think in the upcoming 5 years the plans for farmers will be started accelerating.

We can observe the present government introducing lot of schemes, free electricity to farmers, solar energy, solar pumps, subsidy in
purchasing seeds, training farmers to chemical-free farming Etc.

Nowadays we can observe the vegetables of farmers are directly sold to the retailer it means market. And hence more profit is earned by
farmers.

Digitization, GST also helps to improve the condition of farmers. Gov should increase MSP and purchasing price from farmers.

So that farmers stop suicide.

Rate this: +34 -2

Mahesh Shivnarayan Poojari said: (Sep 8, 2018)

To the benefit of Farmers of India.

The land of the farmers should be registered in government list first. Government should provide water facility, fertilizer and electricity to the
farmers for their farming purposes.

At the time of yield in return 50% of crop can be purchased by the government at their rate also rest 50% can be hand over to the farmer for
their survival.

In this way the government can practice the ignorance for sucidial activities for the benefit of the farmers.

The government and the farmers will be in equal profit.

Rate this: +12 -1

Payal said: (Sep 6, 2018)

To increase farmer's income, present government has increased the MSP of crops. With 'make in India' program, government has made many
industries to depend on farmers for raw materials. Not only domestic companies but foreign companies like Walmart also depend upon
farmers for various products. With the help of digitalisation, it has been made possible for the farmers to know the prevailing market prices of
their products in the market. This helps them to sell their output at reasonable price. Also, they can know about the weather conditions as well
because of digitalisation.

Rate this: +11 -2

Nikunj Senjaliya said: (Sep 4, 2018)

In india, there is no fix agriculture policy, first of all we have to settle this. Second thing is that by not only increased prices of crops will going to
help farmers because due to inflation they will not increase their buing capacity. Rather than we have to introduce new and efficient
technologies to farming that reduce the wastage of crops and increase the production rate.

Another thing is that we have to strengthen our system to provide the MSP to correct people, not to traders.

We should reduce the tax slab (currently 18%) on the agriculture equipments and fertilizers and pesticides to reduce the production cost of
crops.

Rate this: +5 -2

S. Chandini said: (Sep 2, 2018)

The goal is achievable if the farmers adopt and use modern technology in cultivation like drip irrigation as it will direct the maximum utilisation
of water with minimum quantity. Water is like god, we have no right to waste it. The focus will then be on more crop per water for every farm
 doubling farmers income.

To double the farmers income by improving technology, increasing milk production, use of solar light, honey production.

Increase afforestation by planting more trees along river banks to avoid soil erosion during floods.

Rate this: +2 -2

Vikash Pal said: (Sep 1, 2018)

Hi,

I am Vikash Pal BE student from RGPV Bhopal.

Now a day people are getting lazy, workless in the field of farming, agriculture. And the most of people depends on the rainy session because
they have not facilities for watering, boring, canal and electricity. If a farmer takes KCC loan. They have to pay with more interest because the
crop is also ruin due to globalization.

Thanks.

Rate this: +3 -6

Swarnalata Khuntia said: (Aug 31, 2018)

Yes, I think that can be done. As we know India is best in technological sector. So applying advanced technology the new youngsters can do
farming which is helpful for farmers and also for our economical strength. Also, we all change our mentality and not depending upon
government Job we also do agriculture for which the dream for our nation can be fulfilled. Thank you.

Rate this: +3 -2

Sonali said: (Aug 26, 2018)

Hi all.

My name is Sonali.

At present, farmers income is not enough to fulfil their basic needs. For Eg: their children's education, farmers are unable to give proper
education to their children, due to increasing prices of school fees.

Currently, farmers are suffering from lack of facilities, farmers are suffering from a dearth in most of the villages in Maharashtra.

If this conditions would be the same, then I think it is not possible to double farmers income in next 5 years.

Rate this: +13 -2

Bhim said: (Aug 16, 2018)

Agriculture land is decreasing day by day due to increase in the population. If the income will be double or more than now then it would not
that much affect to them because of the inflation in the economy. The main aim of the government should provide that policy by which farmers
can save their money for the future purposes.

Farmers take loan from the moneylenders at the highest interest rates and affect a lot to them because that is the liability for them to return the
money with the high interest whether the crop grown or not.

Rate this: +6 -1

Arpit Argal said: (Aug 10, 2018)

With increase in foreign trade and export of food items and vegetables being facilitated because of refrigerated shipping containers as a result
of increase in globalization. I believe farmers will benefit from this by increasing their production levels and gaining the advantage of a larger
platform for them - the global market.

Rate this: +7 -2

Piya said: (Aug 4, 2018)

Farming and the farmers are the mainbackbone of Indian economy but on the bases of income scale farmers stand on the lowest position.
 Due to the increase in population farmers lands are day by day decreasing in size. If the land was not their then the existence of farmers are
moving towards the dark zone area. If the condion remains same in upcoming years then we will definitely seen the heavy decrement in the
farming work because farmers are not able to earn their minimum livelihood.
By 2022, farmers’ income will double at the least: Radha Mohan Singh

"We have increased import duty on several commodities, raised MSP, widened insurance cover and
invested big time in farm modernisation," says the Union minister.
By

Prerna Katiyar

Is doubling India’s farmers’ income doable?

Science, technology and new knowledge can play crucial roles in supporting livelihoods for the
vulnerable. Identifying right kind of tech support is crucial, especially in agriculture

NEXT BLOG ❯

By Farah Ahmed

Last Updated: Friday 15 March 2019

Forty years since India gained independence, what has really changed for the farmers of today?
During this crucial post-independence period, agriculture contributed 45 per cent of the country’s
GDP, employing the majority of Indian workers. After an impressive increase in agricultural
production in the first two Five Year Plans, a period of stagnancy set in from the 1960s, preceding
the “Green Revolution”.

As the economy opened up post liberalisation (1991), globalisation promoted other sectors into
generating more employment and economic growth. But, despite the reduction to 18 per cent in
agriculture’s contribution to the GDP, agriculture and allied activities still employ the vast majority
of the population.
India’s agrarian sector has undergone various reforms: increase productivity to meet the demands
of a rising population, make farming inclusive, reform land tenures, ensure more benefits to
farmers, end exploitation, encourage better water management practices and so on.The National
Commission for Farmers, established in 2004 made comprehensive recommendations covering
land reforms, soil testing, augmenting water availability, agriculture productivity, credit and
insurance, food security and farmers competitiveness.

But through all these broad sectoral strategies and policy initiatives, we need to ask, have farmers
actually substantially increased their incomes? The answer to this is no. The now
constituted Doubling Farmers’ Income (DFI) Committee wants to do more. It places farmers’ income
at the core of India’s mandate. So what will it really take to double farmers’ incomes in the
country?

Science, technology and new knowledge can play crucial roles in supporting livelihoods for the
vulnerable. Identifying the right kind of tech support is crucial to development progress, even more
so in the context of agriculture. Augmenting water availability and efficiency, agriculture
productivity, risk mitigation strategies and innovations on new models may be the ways to step up
progress further.

Related Stories

 Half-way, doubling farmers’ income is a distant dream

 Slumping potato prices hit farmers, but worse is yet to come

 Inequality among farmers keeps 85 per cent out of discourse

 Will India’s new agricultural export policy work?

Meanwhile an emboldened risk is making farmer livelihoods more precarious. Climate has always
played havoc with the lives of farmers, and it has increasingly become more unpredictable. The
country faces increasingly extreme weather conditions such as severe droughts and floods. This is
hampering farmers’ production capacity, and impacting their livelihoods. Can science and
innovation help here too? All while increasing farmers’ incomes?

A vivid example of technology disrupting and improving old methods is found in the crop insurance
sector. To ensure they can endure extreme weather events, hundreds of Indian farmers have been
provided insurance services through an index-based flood insurance (IBFI) system initiated by the
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), through WLE andCCAFS research programmes.
This tool combines satellite images with hydrological modelling to predetermine flood thresholds,
which has led to quicker compensation payouts to farmers in times of crop failure. This is especially
helpful to low-income, flood-prone communities in the struggle against climate impacts.

This innovation was built on data generated from satellites, which mapped out vulnerable states
within the country—places most likely to be impacted by floods or droughts. In making information
available to farmers at the right time they can plan better cropping cycles and prepare for too
much or too little water, or even to plan for other income sources during risky periods. At the same
time, this data is also used by the insurance companies to plan crop insurance packages for
farmers, making payouts faster and fairer.

In 2018, IWMI and partners rolled out the two-year IBFI pilot in six villages in Muzaffarpur district,
Bihar covering 408 farms. Of those, 170 farmers faced climate shocks and received payouts up to
Rs 20,000 per hectare of insured paddy crop. IBFI is set to roll out more widelyacross India, as it is
seen as a protection against weather crises pushing farmers back into a poverty trap.

Another promising tech fix has been solar powered irrigation. Many see it as a panacea to India’s
water access and availability problems, offering farmers cheaper, more accessible technology that
cuts carbon emissions. Solar powered pumps are now deployed to bring groundwater to millions of
farmer fields. And to ensure farmers don’t deplete groundwater resources through over-pumping,
the IWMI-Tata Programme supports farmer cooperatives, allowing users to pool their surplus solar-
generated electricity and sell it back to the grid. So what was once just an irrigation solution has
become a way to harvest the sun as a ‘cash crop,’ giving communities another source of income,
and generating clean power.

These cases provide classic examples of how science, innovation and technology can help support
farmers to secure and grow income levels, while helping them navigate worsening climate-related
risks. Of course, the right investments in technology only work when paired with infrastructure
development, enabling policies, and the best protections for communities and the environment.
But if India can come together on these key challenges, knowledge and tech have a chance to lead
India to the future.

It’s time to double down on smart technology, so we can finally double the incomes of farmers—
and be doubly ready for climate challenges.

Farmer groups Farmer loans Farmer suicide : Solar power Irrigation International Water …Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE
Himachal's fodder management initiative
can help save lives of rural women
Many rural women in hilly states sustain injuries while collecting fodder; agro forestry initiative to
help address this issue

NEXT NEWS ❯

By Rajeev Khanna

Last Updated: Wednesday 13 March 2019

If one travels across the villages in lower- and medium-altitude hillside districts in India, one is
confronted with many stories about women victims of fodder collection — particularly during the
winter months when it is scarce. Since women are the ones mainly carrying out the tedious task of
fodder collection, there are many instances of them sustaining serious head, neck and back injuries
while trying to collect fodder at precarious heights. On several occasions, they even pay with their
lives.

In an effort to address this under reported but crucial aspect of farm economies, an agro forestry
initiative has been undertaken in Himachal Pradesh to promote cultivation of Grewia Optiva,
common known as ‘Beul’.

The initiative is being carried out by Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry at Nauni, in Solan district, and has been sanctioned by the National Mission on Himalayan
Studies. It is expected to run over the next five years; and it envisages making high yielding and
nutrient-rich varieties of Beul easily available to the farmers of Himachal Pradesh.

Talking about the fodder scarcity and its impact on women, Kisan Sabha leader Kuldeep Tanwar,
who has been studying the issue for several years, said, “The most tragic part is that there is no
attempt at collecting empirical data on the number of women who have sustained serious injuries
or have died while collecting fodder in these districts. There are 226 gram panchayats in the state
and we have been hearing of instances of women sustaining injuries and even dying from most of
them. We have been demanding that the government at least undertake a survey to ascertain the
types of injuries and number of deaths in the last five years and come out with a policy
intervention.”

Tanwar added that 90 per cent of the population in Himachal Pradesh is residing in rural areas, and
majority of them own livestock. “The project on Beul is a welcome initiative. We have been seeking
a Silvi Pastoral Model of forestry where the emphasis is on trees, grass and herbs. The government
needs to come out with a women-centric policy when it comes to fodder,” he said.

HP Sankhyan of the Department of Tree Improvement and Genetic Resources, who is the principal
investigator for the project, said that Beul is traditionally found along the fields.

“After almost two decades of research, we are focusing on developing the best varieties using
canopies so that it assumes a standard height with maximum branches. It can address the fodder
needs of the people in the lean season, particularly the winter months, by providing high nutrients
to the animals,” he said.

“We have 5,000 plants ready with us which we will start distributing these to farmers in Hamirpur,
Kangra and Una districts from the monsoon months. The distribution will be done in collaboration
with the Forest Department. The farmers can approach us directly also. Thereafter we will extend
the initiative to other districts. We will also be initiating the process of biological screening in the
districts where the plants will be grown,” added Sankhyan.
Related Stories

 No more complaints about fodder

 Rural women have resilience to cope with climate risks: study

 Women workers release manifesto demanding changes at workplace

 95 per cent women in India involved in unpaid labour

A study carried out by him showed that in Himachal, the grasslands are poor in respect of their
productive potential and carrying capacity; and there is also an imbalance in human cattle
population (1:1.25) which indicates heavy pressure on natural forest for fodder, small pole, timber
and fuel wood etc.

The study showed that in the last few years, the biomass flow from the forest to the nearby villages
has crossed the carrying capacity of natural forests. “The fuel wood, fodder, timber and other
resources obtained from arable land are not sufficient. Therefore, there is a need to develop a Silvi
Pastoral Model or models with protein-rich tree species which provide nutritious fodder to the
livestock…,” it says.

The study adds that apart from Una, Kangra and Hamirpur, Beul is also found in Solan, Sirmaur,
Bilaspur and parts of Shimla and Kullu districts. The tree is leafless only for two months — March
and April. It highlights that Beul has a protein content ranging between 19 per cent and 22 per
cent.

Sankhyan said rich fodder in turn leads to rich milk yield, and hence, has a positive impact on dairy
farming as well. Further, Beul has a high level of palatability and digestibility with animals. Its
stems can be used for making charcoal, its wood is durable and can be used for making handles of
spades, pick axes and axes, its fibre can also be used for making ropes and the debarked branches
can be used as torchwood. Rural women also use its mucilage to wash their hair.

Under the current initiative, scientists will collect samples of the Beul from six districts of Kangra,
Una, Bilaspur, Solan, Hamirpur and Mandi to evaluate fodder production and nutritional quality of
leaves.

The samples will be collected from five different areas in each district. Further, they will undertake
a biological evaluation of the collected germplasm and study the growth parameters for forage
quality and productivity.

The experts at the Department of Tree Improvement and Genetic Resources have already studied
over 60 families of this tree species and have established a nursery of the best 10 families that will
be used in this project. It is expected that besides being helpful in solving the fodder shortage, the
project will also improve farm incomes.

“The project will be immensely helpful in studying this important plant species, which is a major
source of fodder in states like Himachal Pradesh. Over the course of the project, the university
scientists will also raise a nursery of superior planting material from proven genotypes, and supply
the planting material to the farmers and the state forest department,” said HC Sharma, vice-
chancellor of the University.

Poor health status … Agro-forestry Agriculture India Himachal Pradesh

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

The wise debate

As the world debates the effectiveness of industrialised agriculture, the good-old small farmer
emerges victorious

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Richard Mahapatra

Last Updated: Monday 18 March 2019

In malawi, a new farm policy in the making has some lessons for us to understand the debate on
whether the small informal agriculture or the organised and corporate-controlled one is suitable to
produce food. At its core is the control over seeds. The least-developed African country is adopting
a new law to regulate the trade of seeds.

The proposed law indirectly criminalises the informal seed trade among farmers. Many have
alleged that the Bayer-owned Monsanto is behind the new law to promote and protect its own
patented seeds. Monsanto has already taken over the government-owned seed company.

Malawi’s attempt to favour seed multinationals and to propagate patented and expensive seeds is
not an isolated development. One could argue it is rather the preferred policy of most developing
and poor countries. But what is of interest is to look at the reasons given to adopt such policies.

Countries like Malawi argue that a reliable and healthy seed is crucial for productivity. They
rightfully pursue good and dependable agriculture on which majority of their population depends
for survival. They also say that the technology to ensure this is with the multinational firms, and
there is no other way than to seek it from them. This comes with conditions; the most important
one being assurance of profit. Companies want protected market for their patented seeds; Malawi’s
new seed bill is doing precisely that.

This leads us to another debate: does it mean the existing, and also ancient, system of seed trade
in these countries is not suitable for sustaining a productive farm economy? In most poor and
developing countries, small and marginal farmers dominate; the seed is primarily of indigenous
variety and traded informally and locally through farm-saved sources.
This contentious debate further precipitated on December 17, 2017. The United Nations General
Assembly approved the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural
Areas. This declaration extends human rights protection to farmers whose “seed sovereignty” is
threatened. It was approved by a vote with 121 going in favour; eight against and a sizeable 52
countries abstaining from voting. Developing and poor countries mostly voted in favour while the
developed countries in majority abstained from voting. The US, the United Kingdom, Australia, New
Zealand, Hungary, Israel and Sweden voted against the declaration indicating at the polarised
debate over seeds and ownership. Ideally, this declaration should have triggered country-level
efforts to protect farmers’ rights, like in Malawi the rights of small farmers over their farm-saved
seeds.

This February Timothy Wise’s book Eating Tomorrow: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Battle
for the Future of Food, was released. Wise has indicted governments throwing solutions of
organised agriculture, with corporate-controlled technology and seeds, of misleading farmers on
solutions to farm crisis. His book is based on extensive fieldwork in southern Africa, Mexico, India
and the US Mid-West. He has junked the solutions of consolidating small farms. He sees it as a
power play between formidable businesses and the world’s small farmers. His book argues that
small farmers, who produce most of our food, should be taken more seriously to seek solutions to
their problems.

(This article was first published in Down To Earth's 1-15 March, 2019 print edition)

Farmer loans Seed Laws United Nation (UN) Rural Development Agriculture World Africa

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

Related Stories

 Fall Armyworm attack: Desperation pushes Kenya farmers to danger

 Why Mount Kenya is burning and what can be done to stop the fires

 Did you know Indian and West African monsoons are linked?

 Africa and Asia come together to lead a global initiative to diversify staples

India Environment Portal Resources :

  Identifying options for the development of sustainable seed systems: insights from Kenya
and Mali

 Genetic erosion of crop landraces: trends in the conservation of locally adapted ‘Newar ’
radish in Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh, India

 Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable
food systems

 Report of the Committee for Doubling Farmers’ Income: Volume VII- Input Management for
Resource Use Efficiency & Total Factor Productivity (Ashok Dalwai Committee)

 From green to gene revolution: how farmers lost control of the seeds from agricultural
modernisation

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

The invisibility of gender in Indian

agriculture
Why policy paralysis in granting entitlements to women in agriculture and farm widows needs to be
addressed

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Swasti Pachauri

Last Updated: Tuesday 19 February 2019

A woman farmer during November 2018's march by farmers in Delhi. Credit: Adithyan P C

Over 40,000 farmers had gathered in Delhi from across India on November 20, 2018. Forty-year-old
Chandravati from Ghazipur district, Uttar Pradesh, left three of her daughters and a son back in her
village to participate in the Kisan Mukti March at the Ram Lila Maidan, forgoing a Rs 120 per day
wage rate. Accompanied by her husband and neighbour Manju (35), she, along with 40 other
women from her village and adjoining districts, joined the peaceful congregation in the anticipation
of being heard by those at the helm of policy making.

Just like Chandravati and Manju, Ramrati Devi (70) and Sumitra Devi (55) endured a 30-hour plus
journey from Masauri village in Patna, Bihar. Their demands were simple: to obtain a fair
compensation for the paddy crop that got spoilt in 2018, so as to sustain livelihoods.

Around 80,000 farmers will march from Nashik to Mumbai from February 20 to February 27 in
continuance to their demands from last year. According to the National Crime Records Bureau,
farmer protests increased from 628 in 2014 to 4,837 in 2016, making evident the disenchanted and
displaced agricultural workforce of the country.

While farm pressure groups and protests have been an integral part of Indian history owing to
deep-rooted structural problems of colonial extraction; manipulative cropping patterns;
corporatisation of agriculture; and low investments; recent farmer protests have seen a historical
trend emerging — that of, participation of the female labourer, the woman farmer, the farm widow,
and the consequent visibility of the hitherto invisible ‘gendered’ problem in agriculture.
The recent trend of recognising the most vulnerable among farming communities, is also in
consonance with the recognition of the landless labourer in schemes such as the Odisha
government’s Kalia Yojana.

Conspicuous by ‘her’ absence

Globally more than 400 million women engage in farm work, although they lack equal rights in land
ownership in more than 90 countries. Women worldwide engage in non-mechanised farm
occupations that include sowing, winnowing, harvesting, and other forms of labour-intensive
processes such as rice transplantation.

According to Oxfam (2013), around 80 per cent of farm work is undertaken by women in India.
However, they own only 13 per cent of the land. Recent statistics released by the University of
Maryland and the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER, 2018) state that women
constitute over 42 per cent of the agricultural labour force in India, but own less than two per cent
of farmland.

Women in agriculture are affected by issues of recognition and in the absence of land rights,
female agricultural labourers, farm widows, and tenant farmers are left bereft of recognition as
farmers, and the consequent entitlements.

The root of the problem begins at the official lack of recognition of the female agricultural worker,
and the resultant exclusion from rights and entitlements, such as institutional credit, pension,
irrigation sources, etc. According to the India Human Development Survey (IHDS, 2018), 83 per
cent of agricultural land in the country is inherited by male members of the family and less than
two per cent by their female counterparts.

In the absence of any recognition, women such as Chandravati, Manju, Ramrati Devi, and Sumitra
Devi are left out of entitlements related to access to rural credit, assets, technology, irrigation, and
inputs.

Issues in rural ‘Women Land Rights’ (WLR)

In 2011, M S Swaminathan, Rajya Sabha member (2007-13) proposed the ‘Women Farmers
Entitlement Bill’, which lapsed in 2013. With increasing recognition being given to the contribution
of women in agriculture such as by commemorating the ‘Rashtriya Mahila Kisan Divas’, it is time
that such legislations and institutional reform in agriculture are addressed.

According to the general recommendation # 34 of the United Nations (UN) Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW, 2014) on the rights of rural women, ‘land
rights discrimination is a violation of human rights.’ In the past, several steps have been introduced
in this regard, proper implementation of which has remained tardy.

Related Stories

 Farmer suicides increase for every 1°C rise in temperature during growing season: study
  Limited access to land and water affects productivity of women farmers in Africa

 Study highlights dismal condition of women farmers

The Hindu Succession Amendment Act (2005) granted coparcenary rights to daughters and equal
inheritance rights. The draft of the National Women’s Policy (2016), prepared by the Union Ministry
of Women and Child Development recognised the importance of land rights for women.

However, issues related to tenure security, and most importantly, the chasm between land
‘ownership, accessibility to entitlements, and control,’ are important challenges affecting the
economic empowerment of women in agriculture. One example here is that of proxy sarpanches or
‘sarpanchpatis,’ where the control is often vested with the husband of the elected woman
representative under the aegis of Panchayati Raj Act (1993).

According to Bina Aggarwal (1993), a number of factors constrain women in exercising their legal
rights including patrilocal post-marital residence, village exogamy, opposition to mobility from men,
traditionally institutionalised gender roles, low female literacy and awareness, male dominance in
administrative, judicial, and other public decision-making bodies at all levels.

It should be noted that low awareness about women’s right to land aggravates the magnitude of
the problem. Additionally, reluctance of women to avoid any conflict with male members of the
family and relatives are other factors that inhibit accessibility to agricultural land to women.

Aggravating the issues further is the improper maintenance of land records, poor management of
data, and limited digitisation of land records, which affect implementation of agricultural schemes
meant to uplift farmers in general, as such challenges make identification of beneficiaries difficult.
For instance, some of these challenges have been pointed out in fairly implementing the Pradhan
Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana, announced in Budget 2019.

Farm widows and access to property

Sainath (2014) once quoted, ‘suicide is not about the dead, it is about the living’. Since the advent
of liberalisation, more than 300,000 farmers have committed suicide to escape vicious poverty,
debt, and humiliation over the past twenty years.

In Maharashtra alone, according to reported statistics (BBC, 2014), there are more than 53,000
farm widows. Out of these, around 10,600 live in Vidarbha, the farmer suicide capital of the
country.

Recently, a survey conducted by the Mahila Kisan Adhikar Manch (MAKAAM, 2018) of 505 women
farmers (whose husbands committed suicide due to farm crisis) in 11 districts across Marathwada
and Vidarbha, found that 40 per cent of women widowed by farmer suicides between 2012 and
2018, were yet to obtain rights of the farmland they cultivated.

Among them, only 35 per cent had secured the rights to their family house. The survey also found
that 33 per cent women didn’t know they were entitled to a pension, which makes it evident how
women have been excluded from accessing institutional rights and entitlements, in the absence of
them being recognised as farmers.

Conclusion

According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO, 2011), empowering women through land
and ownership rights has the potential of raising total agricultural output in developing countries
by 2.5 to 4 per cent and can reduce hunger across the world by 12-17 per cent.

The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG #5. a.1), seeks to grant property rights and tenure
security of agricultural land to women. Policy paralysis in granting entitlements to women in
agriculture and farm widows needs to be addressed to empower rural women economically,
politically, socially, and psychologically.

The most critical issue that needs to be addressed toward a gendered friendly policy is to minimise
the gulf between ownership versus control of land by addressing patriarchal conventions and
bottlenecks in interpersonal legislations, to achieve economic equality in gender, as also
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, under the aegis of Article 14.

Farmers Women farm suicides Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

India's city compost policy needs

overhauling
Promised financial incentives for sale of city compost did not prove to be a game-changer in
promoting its marketing and production

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Richa Agarwal

Last Updated: Friday 15 February 2019

Packaged city compost at IL&FS plant, Mysuru. Photo: Swati Singh Sambyal/CSE

The Swachh Bharat Mission had committed to ensuring that all organic waste produced in Indian
cities is processed into making compost by October 2019, but it doesn’t seem likely. Currently, not
even 5 per cent of organic waste generated by cities is converted into compost.

To meet the ambitious target, the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers had announced a Policy on
Promotion of City Compost to promote city compost in February 2016. The advertisements and
punch line ‘Compost Banao, Compost Apnao’ (Make compost, use compost) did catch on but the
lack of an appropriate market and ineffective implementation didn’t give this much-needed
practice the desired popularity.

India currently produces close to 1.5 lakh tonnes of solid waste every day and its biodegradable
fraction ranges between 30 per cent and 70 per cent for various Indian cities. This means there is a
huge potential for compositing, the most natural form of processing wet waste. But, uncontrolled
decomposition of organic waste in dumpsites and also leads to emission of potent greenhouse
gases. So, it is imperative that necessary actions be taken to promote appropriate disposal
mechanisms for solid waste management.

Also, with increasing food demand and depleting soil quality, city compost plays a very important
role as a replacement or supplement to chemical fertilisers in replenishing the nutrient-depleted
soil. That’s why compost must reach our farmers.

Moreover, while the policy’s agenda was right, the subsidy design and implementation was
designed to fail as it was a not taken seriously by any of the three ministries — Ministry of Housing
and Urban Affairs, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizer, and Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s
Welfare.

According to the mobile Fertilizer Management System (mFMS) portal, fertiliser companies have
claimed market development assistance (MDA) for 0.12 million tonnes of compost, whereas 30
compost manufacturers have claimed MDA for the sale of 62,394 tonnes of compost. So, in total
MDA was claimed for 0.18 million tonnes of compost in 2017–18.

According to MoHUA, in 2017, the average compost production increased to 16,000 tonne per
month from 12,000 tonnes per month in 2016. The fact that the full subsidy has not been
disbursed to any manufacturer or marketer in the last three years is concerning.

The policy on promotion of city compost was rolled out to facilitate its marketing through fixed MDA
of Rs 1,500. This subsidy was to reduce the selling price of compost for farmers. It required
agreements amongst municipal body, compost manufacturer and compost marketer, including
fertiliser companies. But, unlike the predictions that the new financial incentives will boost
promotion and production of compost, it did not prove to be a game-changer.

The vacillating manufacturing and selling cost of the compost, associated additional costs,
questionable product quality, no direct incentive/subsidy to farmers and lack of knowledge among
other concerns, ensured city compost didn’t become a popular option for farmers.

Also, the money allocated for MDA subsidy in the last three years is so meager (Rs 15 crore for
2016-17 and 2017-18 and Rs 10 crore for 2018-19) that it could not meet the requirement of even
2 per cent of the SBM’s target. In addition, the process to claim MDA is so tedious that most
manufacturers and fertiliser companies have not received any payment under it.

Another issue with the policy is the conflict of interest. A firm producing chemical fertilisers and its
dealers are unlikely to be enthusiastic about selling organic compost till there is a legal mandate.
The current policy has subsidy but no legal targets. They are just “supposed to” co-market
fertilisers with city compost in a way that there are 6-7 bags of urea and 1-2 bags of city compost.

To create a demand for quality compost, it is necessary to ensure that robust waste management
systems are developed in cities, with source-segregation and promotion of decentralised waste
management at its heart. We also need a much more serious policy to scale up production and
consumption of city compost. It should also support other factors such as by reforms in terms
of fertiliser control order norms, defining testing frequencies, better testing laboratories, stringent
targets for fertiliser companies etc. There is clearly a need and demand for quality city compost in
India waiting to be recognised.

(The author is a research associate in municipal solid waste unit of New Delhi-based non-profit
Centre for Science and Environment. She recently co-authored a report titled ‘Charting the future
of city compost’, which analyses gaps in the existing compost promotion policy and suggests
changes to strengthen it)
 Organic Compost Soil Capability Chemical Fertilisers Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

Related Stories

 We have breached the planetary limit for nitrogen

 We can cut emissions in half by 2040 if we build smarter cities

 Waste wizards

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

Jharkhand’s success story of fruit plantation

under MGNREGA
The state’s experience in horticulture orchards can serve as a model for the country

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Debmalya Nandy

Last Updated: Tuesday 05 February 2019

Lalita Bhengra with her family inside the orchard. Photo: Debmalya Nandy

Rukmani Mandi’s life has completely changed ever since she opted for the mango plantation
activity under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Gurantee Act (MGNREGA). A
barren land, which gave out nothing earlier, turned into a gold mine which fetched her Rs 2.15 lakh
from the water melon farming.

A protected environment with assured irrigation cover gave her the strength to take up farming
inside a plantation area. As part of the convergence initiative, a drip irrigation system was also
installed on her field to ensure precision farming. She had received this system on subsidy from the
concerned department.

Rukmani, a resident of Dhalbhumgarh block of East Singhbhum district, Jharkhand, has now been
recognised as a progressive farmer. Her achievements have not only brought accolades, but also
created hope among thousands of other women in the state.

Lalita Bhengra from Torpa block of Khunti district shares a similar story. In 2015, when she joined
the Roshni Mahila Mandal, a local self help group, her family was going through a terrible financial
crisis.

Most of the land these families possessed was barren, and infertile. Initially, she was reluctant to
take up mango plantation under MGNREGA as she was unable to figure out the potential risks and
uncertainties.
Lalita has now become a role model for many other women in her village. She has not only
maintained a beautiful orchard in 1.5 acres of land, but is also doing round-the-year commercial
farming inside the patch.

Her family earns Rs 13,200 from vegetable cultivation inside the orchard in addition to Rs 16,800
under the MGNREGA, working for 100 days on the horticulture site. She and her family are surely
on a path of prosperity as within three years they will earn handsomely from the orchard as well as
from the farming activities.

The Birsa Munda Bagwaani scheme under the MGNREGA has been giving hope to many over the
last three years in Jharkhand. Horticulture with inter-cropping being a set and established prototype
in some of the impoverished pockets of the state, has now been adopted for large scale
implementation.

Civil society organisations and the Rural Development Department have joined hands to promote
large-scale implementation of mango plantation as part of poverty reduction strategy in rural
areas.

Over the last three years, 4,269 acres of plantation land has been taken up under MGNREGA
Scheme (MGNREGS) which is benefitting approximately 6,500 families. This initiative has been
undertaken in all 24 districts and covers 200 blocks out of the total 263 in the state.

Out of the 4,269 acres, civil society organisations along with the local administration have helped
set up 3,108 acres of horticulture plantation in 72 blocks of 21 districts. The rest has been a spill
over effect and the state is now on a steady scale up mode in all other areas.

The initiative was first launched as a pilot project. Later the initiative was scaled up across the
state after the administration gained adequate knowledge about the processes and activities
through these pilot projects.

As MGNREGA is a process-intensive programme and horticulture is a time bound activity, it’s not an
easy task to integrate the two. The success of horticulture initiatives depend on strict adherence
to timeliness, and success of MGNREGA relies heavily on the processes to ensure timely payments
to the workers.

Also, it was a mammoth task to educate and orient the local administration on the technicalities of
the scheme as horticulture plantation is a highly technical subject and it’s ground implementation
is subject to adherence of these technicalities within a stipulated timeframe.

Commercial mango plantation is generally done on a field which is completely fenced and
protected and has assured irrigation. Ensuring these conditions in context of rural Jharkhand is not
easy as fencing activities are tedious and open grazing following paddy harvest is a menace.

The state still has only 12 per cent irrigation cover, which results in a low cropping intensity and
high dependence on rain-fed farming activities. Thus, the horticulture plantation initiative is a high
risk activity.
Related Stories

 Winds of change in tribal villages

 Himachal farmers start growing pomegranate and cabbage, as apple lines recede due to climate change

 Can permaculture make agriculture sustainable?

 Jharkhand proposes MGNREGA worker unions

 New Green Revolution programme has not benefited Jharkhand farmers, says report

However, this has opened new avenues and the true potential of MGNREGA has been unleashed.
Jharkhand has always had great potential for utilisation of this scheme to check the depletion of
resources through land and water conservation efforts.

Further, MGNREGA can be used for improving farming conditions through rainwater harvesting and
land development activities, thereby impacting rural livelihoods. However, the true potential of
MGNREGA is yet to be realized in Jharkhand.

This fruit plantation initiative can be seen as a good beginning. It can be a game changer as it can
potentially provide up to Rs 1,000 per plant to the beneficiaries.

The prototype is designed in a scientific way after consulting experts of the field. Ground staff and
frontline functionaries are being trained by technical experts who have specialised in horticulture.

A mango tree is planted within 25 square meters of a given area, maintaining a uniform distance of
5 meters between two plants. An acre of land consists of 112 mango saplings and thus a
beneficiary taking up horticulture in 1 acre of land can earn more than Rs 1 lakh every year from
the orchard.

Generally, poor families are given priority while selecting beneficiaries and they are encouraged to
transplant at least 40-50 plants which could fetch them a handsome amount after the initial
gestation period.

The necessary labour and material payments are done through MGNREGA and there are provisions
for replacement of plants in the subsequent year in case of mortality.

It’s important to note that needy families without any access to irrigation sources are also
encouraged to construct dug wells through MGNREGA.

As investments are high and gestation period of mango plants is generally three-four years, poor
and marginalized farmers generally do not find horticulture plantation as a lucrative option, since
they normally search for activities with immediate benefits.

The idea of promoting horticulture in the barren uplands through MGNREGA has been quite useful
as the financial stress is not imposed on the farmer family, the barren lands become productive
and fertile through constant fertilizing and inter-culture operations and most importantly, farming
activities inside the protected fenced patches ensure immediate cash income for the families.

The owners of the mango orchards get pump-sets and delivery pipes from the soil conservation
department at a subsidised price for using them as lifting device while providing irrigation.

Jharkhand’s experience in horticulture orchards under MGNREGA can be a model for the rest of the
country. While the central government has been focussing more on natural resource management
activities and improving livelihoods of people through quality individual assets, the plantation
initiatives seem to be the answer.

This has shown that poor households can not only cope with their immediate vulnerabilities
through MGNREGS, but can also use this scheme to come out of their distressed financial
conditions.

(The author wants to thank Sujoy Bhattacharya and Rajkishor Mandal for their support in writing
the piece)

Horticulture Plantation Crops Mahatma Gandhi … Fruits Indian mango variety Farmeragrarian crisis Agriculture India Jharkhand

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

India Environment Portal Resources :

 Agriculture marketing and role of weekly gramin haats: Standing Committee on Agriculture
(2018-2019)

 Unlocking the potential of rainfed agriculture

 Innovative policy interventions for transformation of farm sector

 Feeding the world in a changing climate: an adaptation roadmap for agriculture

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE
Meghalaya farmer parliament: Will it help
plug policy loopholes
In this well intentioned and executed parliament, both the government and the farmers appeared
determined to make Meghalaya emerge as a role model for the rest of the country

NEXT NEWS ❯

By Arjun Trivedi

Last Updated: Thursday 24 January 2019

Just as the national ‘Kisan Mukti’ protest rally in New Delhi concluded, the Meghalaya government
held its first-ever farmers' parliament between December 4 and 5, 2018, at the state convention
centre in capital Shillong.

The parliament was organised by the state department of agriculture in collaboration with
Meghalaya Basin Development Authority (MBDA) and the Hill Farmers' Union (HFU).

Addressing the gathering of over 500 farmer representatives from across the state, Chief Minister
Conrad Sangma acknowledged the failure of his government to listen to its farmers’ problems.

“Thus far, the policies and schemes had been formulated without knowing what the farmers truly
needed. And the farmers continued to be unaware of the government's schemes and policies,” he
said.

Agriculture production commissioner of Meghalaya, IAS officer KN Kumar, corroborated this lack of
communication between the government and the farmers, saying, “This [information] space was
being filled by middlemen and weak farmers associations,” which only made things worse.
Kumar added that while no reports of farmers' distress have surfaced directly in Meghalaya, the
problems that the farmers face are serious in the same degree—leading to increasing
dispossession of their livelihoods towards daily wage-earning manual jobs and migration.

Each of the 500 farmer representatives at the parliament represented their respective block's
marginal, small, and semi-medium scale farmers that account for 96 per cent of the farmers in
Meghalaya.

The focus of the two-day gathering was mutually constructive dialogue without party politics. The
advisor and chief strategist, Lanu Ignatius, explained, “The meeting had well structured and
moderated sessions, with ample time for questions and answers.”

“Questions that could not be answered, even as the sessions stretched beyond their assigned
limits, were asked to be submitted in writing, directly to the moderators of the sessions to be
answered duly by the relevant government agencies,” he added.

During the session, the farmers endorsed the national demand for debate and approval of the
Kisan Mukti Bills in the Lok Sabha. This was a primary demand in the November 29-30, 2018, Kisan
Mukti march that took place in New Delhi.

The Meghalaya farmers demanded that the state government and MPs support the two national
Kisan Mukti Bills when they are tabled. These bills seek to comprehensively end the vicious cycle of
farmer's debt by synergising the solutions of farmers debt relief with solutions to provide them
remunerative minimum support prices as per the reports by the MS Swaminathan commission-led
National Commission on Farmers.

All the demands were consolidated as a charter of demands and resolution at the farmer
parliament. This charter has been submitted to the state Cabinet—to be discussed in a special
state legislative assembly session.

Other demands:

 Establishment of a farmer commission at the earliest, as well as the establishment of an

implementation and monitoring committee for all agriculture and allied sector schemes and
missions at the block level of the state

 2019 be declared as the ‘Year of the Farmer’, and special funds be allocated for introduction
and promotion of new technologies, including mobile application development by HFU, seed
technologies, tissue culture lab, and installation of solar based food dryers, etc

 Strengthening of public healthcare services, with focus on preventive and pre-emptive

primary healthcare so that households don’t reel under the burden of ill health and
privatised unaffordable healthcare

 Promotion of Global Good Agricultural Practice (GLOBAL GAP) standard compliant farming
and methods, and a comprehensive agricultural policy for the state
  Allocation of land and special incentive for setting up of pineapple and tomato food
processing plants by HFU

As a step toward the promotion of new technologies, HFU with the support of Meghalaya
government, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for a Machine Learning Artificial
Intelligence App for farmers — called Nongrep (nongrep in Khasi language means farmer) with its
software partner Impetus Solutions from Hyderabad — as a social innovation project.

This app will address matters of farm aggregations, soil health and disease identification, crop
yield, farm produce pickups, market linkage and retail sellers app. "The app is right now under beta
testing with HFU,” said Lanu Ignatius, who is also the chief architect of the app.

There were also a series of focused technical sessions on the various departments within the
department of agriculture namely: agriculture and horticulture; animal husbandry and veterinary;
and fisheries, bamboo mission and piggery. The sessions were chaired by the respective
department's director or secretary.

In each session, a series of expert presentations informed the farmers of the department's broad
mission and its related schemes, technologies, and general infrastructure.

At the end of the first day, there was an hour-long open session for farmers to comment and make
suggestions on the day's proceedings. This session stretched beyond its hour long limit as the
moderating official, Kumar, along with his colleagues, patiently responded to all questions.

The response to some of the questions either directly led to a solution or to immediate steps
towards one. In this well intentioned and executed historic parliament, both the government and
the farmers appeared determined to make Meghalaya emerge as a role model for the rest of the
country. The state plans to regularly hold such parliaments in the future.

Farmer protests double farmer income farmer welfare Khasi Hills Expert Appraisal … AgricultureIndia

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

Related Stories

 The unregulated, lethal and corrupt world of Meghalaya’s rat-hole mines

 North-eastern states live in fear of drought

 The fire-fighting children of the Khasi Hills and the decline of traditional farming in north-east India
  Conference on ‘slow food’ kicks off in Meghalaya

 Assam, Meghalaya seek Centre’s assistance to deal with flood aftermath

India Environment Portal Resources :

 Agriculture marketing and role of weekly gramin haats: Standing Committee on Agriculture
(2018-2019)

 Shifting cultivation: towards a transformational approach

 Transformation of Indian agriculture? growth, inclusiveness and sustainability

 Water poverty in the northeastern hill region (India): potential alleviation through multiple-
use water systems

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

Was there a victory for Monsanto in India's

Supreme Court on a patent matter?
Media headlines, especially from business media houses and American media, continue to scream
that Monsanto has had a “patent victory” in the Supreme Court of India

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Kavitha Kuruganti

Last Updated: Monday 14 January 2019

Media headlines, especially from business media houses and American media, continue to scream
that Monsanto has had a “patent victory” in the Supreme Court of India which will in turn boost
biotech investment in India. The news stories claim that Monsanto won a patent-related legal battle
and that the Court ruled that Monsanto can claim patents on its GM cotton seeds. This is even after
five full days after the judgement has been uploaded onto the Court’s website.

Supreme Court overturns Delhi HC judgement of April 2018, but does not pronounce its
own stand on Monsanto’s patent:

Yes, it is true that the Supreme Court on 08/01/2019 overturned an earlier ruling in the Delhi High
Court by a Division Bench on 11.04.2018 wherein Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Yogesh
Khanna of the Delhi HC recorded one of their conclusions thus – “the subject patent falls within the
exclusion spelt out by Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act; the subject patent and the claims covered by
it are consequently held to be unpatentable”, speaking about Monsanto’s Patent No. 214436,
pertaining to the (Bt Cry2Ab) genetic sequence which is the basis of its Bollgard II Bt cotton
business. The Division Bench incidentally upheld the Single Judge’s directions to Monsanto to
continue with its obligations which caused Monsanto to appeal against the March 2017 single
judge’s orders in the first instance.

To the extent that the Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench judgement which pronounced
the patent and its claims unpatentable, the patent of Monsanto can be assumed to be restored.
However, it is not correct to say that Supreme Court’s Justices Rohintan Fali Nariman and Navin
Sinha pronounced that Monsanto can claim patents on its GM cotton seeds.

Supreme Court points to lacunae in Division Bench’s pronouncement on patentability of

a genetic sequence, and asks parties to get the original suit heard by the single judge
bench of Delhi HC:

The SC judgement said the following in fact about the Division Bench judgement: “Summary
adjudication of a technically complex suit requiring expert evidence also, at the stage of injunction
in the manner done, was certainly neither desirable or permissible in the law. The suit involved
complicated mixed questions of law and facts with regard to patentability and exclusion of patent
which could be examined in the suit on basis of evidence…. There is no gain saying that the issues
raised were complicated requiring technological and expert evidence with regard to issues of
chemical process, biochemical, biotechnical and micro biological processes and more importantly,
whether the nucleic acid sequence trait once inserted could be removed from that variety or not,
and whether the patented DNA sequence was a plant or a part of a plant etc., are again all matters
which were required to be considered at the final hearing of the suit…. The Division Bench ought to
have confined itself to the examination of the validity of the order of injunction granted by the
Single Judge….The order of the Division Bench is set aside. The order of the Single Judge dated
28.03.2017 is restored and the suit is remanded to the learned Single Judge for disposal in
accordance with law”. Therefore, the Supreme Court merely ordered that the dispute(s) be taken
back to the Single Judge bench of the Delhi High Court, while showcasing what it pronounced as
procedural/legal lapses by the Division Bench. By no stretch of imagination can it be claimed that
the Supreme Court has pronounced its stand on the validity of Monsanto’s patent and even upheld
it.

Long standing dispute between Monsanto and Nuziveedu:

The dispute between Monsanto and Nuziveedu goes back a long way. To around 2003 in fact, when
Nuziveedu had to face India’s de-facto patent regime in the form of its biosafety regulatory regime
under the Ministry of Environment & Forests, which compelled Nuziveedu to get into sub-licensing
agreements with Monsanto (Monsanto Mahyco Biotech), to be able to use the Bt technology in its
cotton hybrids. That was for Bollgard I technology or Cry1Ac gene which did not even have a
patent in India. Trouble has been brewing since then.

The original disputes that brought the parties to the Delhi High Court in 2016 pertained to the fact
that Monsanto contends that Nuziveedu is still to pay its dues with regard to trait/license fees,
while Nuziveedu contends that Monsanto has illegally terminated their sub-license agreement on
14.11.2015 in an unjustified manner and that it is not bound to pay anything more than the trait
value fixed by states and centre. There was also the matter of whether trademarks of Bollgard can
be used or not, or even the use of abbreviations like “BGII” by Nuziveedu which denies any
infringement.

Single Judge Bench did not delve into the patentability matters:
On 28.03.2017, a Single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court, while adjudicating on an application for
injunction, did not actually decide on the patentability question and kept it for examination until
after the pleadings were complete. Judge R.K. Gauba only ordered that during the pendency of the
suit, the parties shall remain bound by their respective obligations under the sub-license
agreement that the parties got into. Monsanto et al preferred an appeal against the injunctive relief
provided by the single judge bench.

The Supreme Court now pointed out that even though the single judge bench did not deal with, or
consider the counter claim of Nuziveedu Seeds (defendants) with regard to the patentability, the
Division Bench’s judgement that the Patent of Monsanto was subject to patent exclusion under
Section 3(j) of Indian Patents Act and thereby invalidating the patent, in effect made the
defendants counter claim succeed.

Is this merely a mercantile matter as being debated in India’s Courts?

The issue of patentability of nucleic acid sequences came up in the context of whether there is an
patent infringement by Nuziveedu.

The entire dispute and legal debate between the two (groups of) parties make it look as though it is
a matter of mercantile laws whereas the core of the issue affects farmers and their livelihoods.
Going by an affidavit filed by the Union of India in a related case in the Delhi High Court, wherein
they state that farm suicides were caused by Bt cotton, high seed prices and losses incurred by
farmers, it is a matter of life and death for farmers! At the end of the day, the disputed royalties,
license and trait fees etc., are all being shelled out by farmers of this country and not coming from
the pockets of Monsanto or Nuziveedu. In the USA and Canada, it is well known that Monsanto had
sued, fined and jailed farmers in the name of patent infringement. The recent Supreme Court
judgement records Monsanto’s counsel submitting in the Court that the plaintiffs (Monsanto et al)
have no intention to sue any Indian farmer for violation of patent. That Monsanto cannot and will
not is obvious, without a riot breaking out on the streets of India.

But that is not the only black and white way to look at patents on ostensible “nucleic acid
sequences which are chemical compounds” as though they have no bearing on seeds, seed
monopolies and exorbitantly high prices of such seeds, which have a direct bearing on farmers’ net
returns and livelihoods. Elsewhere, it is well documented that farmers have limited choices with
regard to seeds and planting material due to patent enforcement and resulting monopolies. In the
end, seed companies benefit enormously at the expense of farmers – it is reported that Monsanto
would have realised trait value of around US$ 240 millions between 2010-2015 and it is obvious
that this came from poor Indian farmers’ pockets. It would therefore be useful for Indian courts to
keep this in mind and not look at it as a mere mercantile matter.

Is the genetic sequence patented under Patent No. 214436 merely a chemical
compound?

Related Stories

 Monsanto loses wheat patent

  Monsanto shuns GM

Patent No. 214436 vis-à-vis the Indian Patents Act…

A look at the entire patent filing episode by Monsanto shows very clearly that the claims were
manipulated opportunistically between process and product claims, so that it somehow fits into the
Indian patent laws prevalent at a particular point of time.

While looking at Monsanto’s claim that its Patent No. 214436 is essentially about a “nucleic acid
sequence” which is a chemical created in a laboratory, the Court has to remember that if that is
the case, this chemical compound would be regulated within the pesticides regulatory regime in
India, not the GMOs regime. It is after all this genetic sequence which makes ordinary cotton
varieties into Bt cotton, which consequently get regulated as living organisms, under the EPA 1986
and not as a pesticide.

The nucleic acid sequence is indeed heritable when embedded into a plant cell, and heritability is a
trait connected with a living organism. However, it is not capable of reproducing itself and
therefore, is not a micro-organism which is specified as a patentable matter in the Indian law.

The Indian Patents Act had a sub-section (2) added under Section 5 in 2002, which gave an
explanation for “chemical processes” allowing for patenting of chemical processes which was
significantly deleted when the Parliament amended the Act in 2005. The legislative intent of the
Indian Parliament is clear – it denied protection under Patents Act for such genes and genetic
materials, and brought such seeds under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act of
2001, and is reflected also in the National Seeds Policy of 2002. This is consistent with India’s
international stand too, which however the Indian Patent Office did not always uphold since it
began granting several patents on genetic materials.

Claims with regard to the disputed patent show that it is both about a DNA sequence as well as its
linking to other sequences (process) and placement in a plant cell (process). Claim 25 in this patent
is not merely describing a product but is about a process for making a product of certain functions.
The said nucleic acid sequence can be functional only after becoming a part of the plant cell.

Amongst the many parties that intervened and are on the defendants’ side in the case, the
argument is that the patented product is an inherent, intrinsic and integral part of a plant as it
exists at the sub-cellular level (and a part of a plant is excluded from patentability), and that the
claim is not about a chemical sequence in a vial but about having a plant produce a high level of
expression of an endotoxin protein etc.

Can there be a patent without fulfilling the “industrial application” criterion?

For any invention to be patented, an essential criterion to be fulfilled is that of industrial

application. Monsanto’s NAS (nucleic acid sequence), described by it as a chemical product, is not
capable of industrial application until it is first integrated into a plant cell where it can express itself
through essentially biological processes of transcription, translation and replication; until it
stabilises into the plant through repeated back-crossing processes which are also essentially
biological processes and until the NAS is heritable to the next generation of seeds which are sold as
F1 hybrids, which happens through essentially biological processes. There is no industrial
application of a mere NAS by itself without essentially biological processes, which then make the
NAS unpatentable under Indian law.

Precedence of citing public interest and revocation of patents exists

It is clear that there is no reason for grant of patents which have even an indirect bearing on
plants, because the Indian law has explicitly kept them out of patentability. Giving patents on
genes and nucleic acid sequences will have such an indirect bearing and should therefore not be
allowed.

Incidentally, Sec. 66, which allows for revocation of a patent in public interest, has indeed been
used in the past in the case of revocation of Indian Patent No. 168950 granted initially to Agracetus
Inc. for a “method of producing transformed cotton cells by tissue culture”. The then ICAR DG
argued that the patent was incontrovertibly detrimental to our farmers and our people at large, and
the Law Ministry concurred. One of the grounds was on safety of such genetically engineered
cotton. The revocation was not on technical grounds of process vs product or non patentable
subject matter etc., but on the simple fact that certain patents are generally prejudicial to the
public. The same approach should be applied to Monsanto’s disputed patent as well as all other
such patents in India, and such patent grants be revoked.

Inventions that are prejudicial to public interest are not patentable

This approach is reinforced by Section 3(b) which also specifies ‘inventions not patentable’ – Sec.
3(b) states, “an invention the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of which could be
contrary to public order or morality or which causes serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life
or health or to the environment”. Given the Government of India’s own admission in a court of law
on the lack of efficacy of Monsanto’s proprietary technology (which is the patent subject matter),
that farmers were being forced to commit suicides, and given that Bt cotton farmers (90-95% of
India‟s Bt cotton is planted to this “event” of Monsanto) are incurring large scale losses due to
uncontrollable pest attacks, this ‘invention’ is a fit case to be declared as “not patentable”.

REFUNDING THE COLLECTIONS MADE SO FAR TO INDIAN FARMERS

It is not just a revocation of the patent that is called for, but a refund of the amounts collected from
Indian farmers as part of seed prices from the seed companies involved in the sub-licenses. The
only way justice can be meted out to them is by getting the Appellants and Respondents in this
case to collectively pay back what they have collected from our farmers, as fund to be returned to
them.

Monsanto Supreme Court Genetically modified genetically modified (… Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

 Subscribe

Donate Now

India Environment Portal Resources :

 Order of the High Court of Delhi regarding Monsanto's appeal for patents on its BT cotton
seeds in India, 11/04/2018

 Judgement of the High Court of Delhi regarding Nuziveedu Seeds Limited continuing to sell
GM cotton seeds in spite of termination of agreement with Mahyco Monsanto Biotech,
28/03/2017

 Seed-patent case in Supreme Court

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

Mushroom-growing Elm trees can empower

Barot village communities
Small innovations often occur at the grassroot level, and these may hold clues for local and
regional-level solutions

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Deepika Thakur , Alpy Sharma , Sanjay Kr. Uniyal

Last Updated: Saturday 12 January 2019

The concept of CILLAGE or city in a village and empowerment of rural communities has stuck the
right chord with a focus on inclusive development.

Small innovations often occur at the grassroot level, and these may hold clues for local and
regional-level solutions. Thus, observing and documenting innovations at local levels and the
associated knowledge can be crucial.

During our recent visit to Barot Valley of Himachal Pradesh, we had a first-hand experience of
targeted recording of traditional conservation practices and resource use.

Narrow mountainous roads winding through beautiful conifer forests with a breath taking view of
Himalaya welcome you to Barot. Nestled in the lap of Dhauladhar mountains at an altitude of 1,900
metres, Barot is frequently referred as “Himalayan paradise”, “beautiful landscape” and “trekkers
heaven”.

The Uhl river is famous for the Hydel power project constructed by the Britishers and the trout fish.
Climate in the valley is cool with heavy snowfall during winters. Along the valley, the landscape is
dotted by small villages with wooden houses, typically made out of Cedrus deodara and Piceas
mithiana.

This land is home to the Bhangalis—an agro pastoral community. Quality potatoes, kidney beans
and trout farms are the hallmark of the area. Recently cultivation of cabbage and cauliflowers has
also come up in a big way.
In the midst of the scenic beauty, a woman selling oyster mushrooms caught our attention. It was
surprising since no one, during our household surveys, talked about growing mushrooms and we
did not find anyone else selling it.

So we asked the woman—55-year-old Chamu Devi from Bhujling village—to sit with us and share
her story. She recalled that as a child, during the rainy season, she would accompany her parents
and grandparents to search for Elm (locally called maraal).

Elm, botanically known as Ulmus wallichaiana, is a native deciduous tree species that is distributed
across the western Himalayas and belongs to the Ulmaceae family.
The characteristic greyish-brown bark with longitudinal furrows make the tree easily identifiable.
This species can be utilised for a variety of purposes, including fuel, fodder and medicines
purposes. Limited population and restricted distribution has resulted in the species being listed as
vulnerable.

Through trial and error, people in the area are now aware that the pale yellow fluffy mushroom
growing on Elm is safe for consumption. These mushrooms are locally called “kyaun”, and are a
prized delicacy.

Locals go searching for the mushrooms in the rainy season (mid-June to mid-September). Devi tells
us that health and economic restraints made her bring some Elm logs to her back yard. She cut
them into one-to- two-metre-long logs and carried them to her kitchen garden.

A typical kitchen garden in the area comprises of vegetables and other useful plants grown for self-
consumption. One can easily find mustard, amaranth, capsicum, yam, coriander, gourds, cucumber
etc, growing in the backyards.

Earlier, Devi’s kitchen garden would only produce enough for subsistence, but now, she even
makes money through it.

Her Elm logs bloom with oyster mushrooms when it rains. Every third day, more than 25 logs in her
backyard produce almost 10-15 kilogrammes (kg) of mushrooms. The mushrooms can be re-
harvested within a couple of days.

The harvest is sold in the market at a premium rate of Rs 60-80 per kg. Interestingly, she is
unaware of the cultivation techniques required to grow mushrooms.

Locals in the area are slowly beginning to realise that cultivating these mushrooms can provide a
steady source of income. Hence, the need of the hour is to help them derive a livelihood out of the
practice and boost inclusive growth.

Field surveys, an eye for surroundings and value addition to grass root innovations are much
desired.

Western Himalaya Himalayan … Himalayan ecology Village development plan Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now
Related Stories

 Why increase in global tree cover does not call for celebration

 Why do we study tree rings and what do they tell us?

 Sacred, a way of life

 Globally, over 15 per cent of all tree species face extinction threat

 Indigenous trees at risk of disappearing in central Africa

POST A COMMENT

AGRICULTURE

India’s cow crisis: A rebuttal to Sunita Narain

Down To Earth's Editor wrote how it is brutal to kill India’s ancient Uber economy: PETA India
director offers a counter-point

NEXT NEWS ❯
By Poorva Joshipura

Last Updated: Thursday 10 January 2019

Credit: Adithyan P C

Sunita Narain often makes good points but, like most people, isn’t infallible, and can be wrong. She
is definitely, indisputably wrong when it comes to excusing or even defending the deleterious
environmental impact of meat, egg and dairy consumption.

In her recent opinion piece, “India's Cow Crisis Part 3: Brutal to kill India’s ancient Uber economy,”
Sunita decries vegetarianism, but given what we know today about how the production of animal-
derived foods are destroying the planet, from deforestation to the ozone layer, such a position
cannot hold water. You can’t be a meat-eating environmentalist—there’s no two ways about it.
Sunita wants to believe that things are somehow different in India, that somehow India is unique
and bears no responsibility for the consequences of cattle farming and use, when in fact, it bears a
heavy one. The planet does not recognise arbitrary human borders, and with its position as a top
meat and dairy producer and the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions, India
cannot just point fingers elsewhere and proclaim innocence.

India needs to address its meat and dairy eco-footprint because looking the other way, pretending
we are not part of the global whole, harms India itself, with the country already suffering from
serious effects of climate change, including warming temperatures that are upsetting crops,
changing rainfall patterns, droughts, and rising sea levels. In fact, global warming is said to be
heating our oceans at the equivalent of one atomic bomb explosion per second.

India has the world’s largest cattle population and a recent study by the Indian Institute of
Technology, Delhi and the Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology, Murthal
warns that methane emitted by Indian livestock can significantly raise global temperatures.
Methane is produced in the digestive system of ruminant (cows, water buffaloes, sheep, goats and
camels) animals. This gas is then released through these animals’ flatulence, when they belch, or
through their manure. Animals reared for food emit more than one-third of the world’s methane
emissions. Methane is said to be 72 times more impactful than carbon dioxide over a 20-year time
span toward global warming.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures put greenhouse gas emissions from animals reared
for food at somewhere between 14.5 per cent to 18 per cent of all human-caused emissions, more
than that caused by transportation. That is more than all of the cars, trucks, ships, planes and
other vehicles in the world combined!

Sunita floated that tired old argument of meat-eating being a personal choice. Forgive me, but that
is like saying rape is a personal choice. Cow vigilantism is not the solution—violence never is—but
consumers can and must be honestly informed of how their meat consumption impacts others. And
when choices impact others, and in this case the whole earth, eating meat is a selfish choice that
does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, what about the personal choice of animals like cows who are
such good mothers, but who do not want their beloved calves removed from their side so that the
milk meant for them can be stolen to be sold, who do not want to live lives as “beasts of burden,”
or wish to have their legs tied together and be cast to the filthy slaughterhouse floor to have their
throats slit? It turns out, what’s bad for animals and the planet is also bad for us: as India’s
addiction to meat, eggs and dairy persist, so does its rates of heart disease, diabetes, certain
cancers, obesity and other illnesses linked to the consumption of animals, milk, and eggs.

While India has 194 million hungry people and as 163 million people in the country lack access to
safe water, a study published by National Academy of Sciences reveals animal agriculture uses a
staggering one-third of the world’s fresh water resources, as well as one-third of the world’s global
cropland as feed for animals. Imagine if India’s hungry were fed with these crops directly instead.
The time has come to care about farmers while recognising the reality of climate change-related
problems that affect them to the point of suicide, including malaria, dengue and diseases resurging
that add to the burdens of the poorest of our poor.
A national move toward healthy, vegan eating of pulses, rice, grains, fruits and vegetables, would
address cattle abandonment since these dear, blighted animals would no longer be bred in large
numbers for milk, only to suffer or end their lives badly. It would also provide more eco-friendly
business opportunities to farmers—for instance, as dairy consumption decreases, the consumption
of milk made from soya, almond, oats or other plants grows. Ironically, the taste for flesh in India
also presents an exciting vegan business opportunity for plant-based “meats”.

(Poorva Joshipura is Director, PETA India)

Cow dung Beef Methane Methane emissions ruminants Agriculture India

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Subscribe

Donate Now

Related Stories

 India's Cow Crisis Part 1: Nepal bears the brunt of India's cow vigilantism

 India's Cow Crisis Part 2: Threat of decline looms over livestock economy after 35 years’ growth

India Environment Portal Resources :

 Order of the Uttarakhand High Court regarding protection and welfare of animals,
04/07/2018

 Grazed and confused?: ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the
soil carbon sequestration question – and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions

 Atmospheric observations show accurate reporting and little growth in India’s methane
emissions

 Petition filed in the Supreme Court of India regarding Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act
1976, 04/08/2016

POST A COMMENT
 DownToEarth
Down To Earth is a product of our commitment to make changes in the way we manage our environment, protect health and secure livelihoods and economic
security for all. We believe strongly that we can and must do things differently. Our aim is to bring you news, perspectives and knowledge to prepare you to
change the world. We believe information is a powerful driver for the new tomorrow.

Quick Access

 India

 World

 Climate Change

 Food

 Health

 Water

 Cartoons

 Interviews

Quick Access

 News

 In-Depth

 Blogs

 Videos

 Photo Gallery

 Book Reviews

 Focus

Info

 About Us

 Author Directory

 Blogger Directory

 Contact Us
  Privacy Policy

 Terms and Conditions

 Refunds & cancellations policy

© Copyright Down To Earth 2019. All rights reserved.

 Powered by Evalvenow

Farmers' suicides in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Farmer suicides in India refers to the national catastrophe of farmers committing suicide since
the 1990s, often by drinking pesticides, due to their inability to repay loans mostly taken from
banks and NBFCs to purchase expensive seeds and fertilizers, often marketed by foreign MNCs.
[1]

As of 2018, in Maharashtra alone, more than 60,000 suicides had taken place, with an average
of 10 suicides every day. [2]

The National Crime Records Bureau of India reported that a total 296,438 Indian farmers had
committed suicide since 1995. Of these, 60,750 farmer suicides were in the state of Maharashtra
since 1995, with the remainder spread out in Odisha, Telengana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Gujarat and Chhattisgarh, all states with loose financial and entry regulations. [3][4]

Earlier, governments had reported varying figures, from 5,650 farmer suicides in 2014 to the
[5]

highest number of farmer suicides in 2004 of 18,241. The farmers suicide rate in India had
[6]

ranged between 1.4 and 1.8 per 100,000 total population, over a 10-year period through 2005,
however the figures in 2017 and 2018 showed an average of more than 10 suicides daily. There [7]

are accusations of states manipulating the data on farmer suicides, hence the real figures could
be even higher. [8]

India is an agrarian country with around 70% of its people depending directly or indirectly upon
agriculture. Farmer suicides account for 11.2% of all suicides in India. Activists and scholars
[5]

have offered a number of conflicting reasons for farmer suicides, such as high debt burdens,
poor government policies, corruption in subsidies, monsoon failure, publicmental health, personal
issues and family problems. [9][10][11]
 Contents

 1History

 2States affected

 3Reasons

o 3.1Government Economic Policy

o 3.2GM crops

o 3.3Misdirection of government subsidies and funds

o 3.4Drought

o 3.5Suicide idea

o 3.6Maddy's government field surveys

 4Statistics

o 4.1Farmers versus other professions

o 4.2Total number of farmers

 5Responses to farmers' suicides

o 5.12006 relief package

o 5.2Agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008

o 5.3Regional initiatives

 5.3.1Maharashtra Bill to regulate farmer loan terms, 2008

 5.3.2Maharashtra relief package, 2010

 5.3.3Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2012

o 5.42013 diversify income sources package

o 5.5Effectiveness of government response

 6International comparison

 7In popular culture

 8See also

 9References
History[edit]

Total No of Farmer suicides reported in India per year as NCRBC, India[6][12][13][14]

Historical records relating to frustration, revolts and high mortality rates among farmers in India,
particularly cash crop farmers, date back to the 19th century. However, suicides due to the [15][16]

same were rare. The high land taxes of the 1870s, payable in cash regardless of the effects of
[17]

frequent famines on farm output or productivity, combined with colonial protection of usury,
money lenders and landowner rights, contributed to widespread penury and frustration among
cotton and other farmers, ultimately leading to the Deccan Riots of 1875-1877. The British [17][18]

government enacted the Deccan Agriculturists’ Relief Act in 1879, to limit the interest rate
charged by money lenders to Deccan cotton farmers, but applied it selectively to areas that
served British cotton trading interests. Rural mortality rates, in predominantly agrarian British
[17][19]

India, were very high between 1850 and the 1940s. However, starvation related deaths far [20][21]

exceeded those by suicide, the latter being officially classified under "injuries". The death rate [22]

classified under "injuries", in 1897, was 79 per 100,000 people in Central Provinces of India and
37 per 100,000 people in Bombay Presidency. [23]

Ganapathi and Venkoba Rao analyzed suicides in parts of Tamil Nadu in 1966. They
recommended that the distribution of agricultural organo-phosphorus compounds be restricted.
Similarly, Nandi et al. in 1979 noted the role of freely available agricultural insecticides in
[24]

suicides in rural West Bengal and suggested that their availability be regulated. Hegde studied [25]

rural suicides in villages of northern Karnataka over 1962 to 1970, and stated the suicide
incidence rate to be 5.7 per 100,000 population. Reddy, in 1993, reviewed high rates of farmer [26]

suicides in Andhra Pradesh and its relationship to farm size and productivity. [27]

Reporting in popular press about farmers' suicides in India began in the mid-1990s, particularly
by Palagummi Sainath. In the 2000s, the issue gained international attention and a variety of
[28][29]

Indian government initiatives. [30][31]

National Crime Records Bureau, an office of the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India,
has been collecting and publishing suicide statistics for India since the 1950s, as annual
Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India reports. It started separately collecting and publishing
farmers suicide statistics from 1995. 12,000 farmers commited suicide in Maharastra between
[32]

2015 and 2018. [33]

States affected[edit]
According to a report by the National Crime Records Bureau, the states with the highest
incidence of farmer suicide in 2015
were Maharashtra (3,030), Telangana (1,358), Karnataka(1,197), Madhya Pradesh (581), Andhra
Pradesh (516), and Chhattisgarh (854). [34]
Tamma Carleton, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, compared suicide and
climate data, concluding that climate change in India may have "a strong influence" on suicides
during the growing season, triggering more than 59,000 suicides in 30 years. [35]

More than 23,000 farmers have committed suicide in the state of Maharashtra between 2009 and
2016. [36] [check quotation syntax]

Reasons[edit]
Various reasons have been offered to explain why farmers commit suicide in India, including:
floods, drought, debt, use of genetically modified seed, public health, use of lower quantity
pesticides due to less investments producing a decreased yield. There is no consensus on
[37][38][39]

what the main causes might be but studies show suicide victims are motivated by more than one
cause, on average three or more causes for committing suicide, the primer reasons being the
inability to repay loans. Panagariya, an economist at the World bank states, "farm-related
[40]

reasons get cited only approximately 25 percent of the time as reasons for suicide" and "studies
do consistently show greater debt burden and greater reliance on informal sources of credit"
amongst farmers who commit suicide. [40]

Reasons for farmers suicides. ¶ Percent

(in 2002)[40] (of suicides)

Failure of crops 16.84

Other reasons (e.g. chit fund) 15.04

Family problems with spouse, others 13.27

Chronic illness 9.73

Marriage of daughters 5.31

Political affiliation 4.42

Property disputes 2.65

Debt burden 2.65

Price crash 2.65

Borrowing too much (e.g. for house construction) 2.65

Losses in non-farm activities 1.77

Failure of bore well 0.88

¶
Note: "Reasons given by close relatives and friends.
Every case cited more than one reason."[40]

A study conducted in 2014, found that there are three specific characteristics associated with
high-risk farmers: "those that grow cash crops such as coffee and cotton; those with 'marginal'
farms of less than one hectare; and those with debts of 300 Rupees or more." The study also
found that the Indian states in which these three characteristics are most common had the
highest suicide rates and also accounted for "almost 75% of the variability in state-level
suicides." [41][42]

A 2012 study, did a regional survey on farmers suicide in rural Vidarbha (Maharashtra) and
applied a Smith's Saliency method to qualitatively rank the expressed causes among farming
families who had lost someone to suicide. The expressed reasons in order of importance behind
[43]

farmer suicides were – debt, alcohol addiction, environment, low produce prices, stress and
family responsibilities, apathy, poor irrigation, increased cost of cultivation, private money
lenders, use of chemical fertilizers and crop failure. In other words, debt to stress and family
[43]

responsibilities were rated as significantly higher than fertilizers and crop failure. In a different
study in the same region in 2006, indebtedness (87%) and deterioration in the economic status
(74%) were found to be major risk factors for suicide. [44]

Studies dated 2004 through 2006, identified several causes for farmers suicide, such as
insufficient or risky credit systems, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural
income, absence of alternative income opportunities, a downturn in the urban economy which
forced non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counselling services. In 2004, in [37][45][46]

response to a request from the All India Biodynamic and Organic Farming Association, the
Mumbai High Court required the Tata Institute to produce a report on farmer suicides
in Maharashtra, and the institute submitted its report in March 2005. The survey cited
[47][48]

"government's lack of interest, the absence of a safety net for farmers, and lack of access to
information related to agriculture as the chief causes for the desperate condition of farmers in the
state."[47]

An Indian study conducted in 2002, indicated an association between victims engaging in

entrepreneurial activities (such as venturing into new crops, cash crops, and following market
trends) and their failure in meeting expected goals due to a range of constraints. [49][50]

Government Economic Policy[edit]

Economists like Utsa Patnaik, Jayati Ghosh and Prabhat Patnaik suggest that structural [51][52]

changes in the macro-economic policy of Indian Government that favoured privatisation,

liberalisation and globalisation are the root cause of farmer suicides. Business economists [53]

dispute this view.

[54]

GM crops[edit]
A number of social activist groups and studies proposed a link between expensive genetically
modified crops and farmer suicides. Bt cotton (Bacillus thuringiensis cotton) was claimed to be
[45]

responsible for farmer suicides. The Bt cotton seeds cost nearly twice as much as ordinary
[55]

ones. The higher costs forced many farmers into taking ever larger loans, often from private
moneylenders charging exorbitant interest rates (60% a year). The moneylenders force farmers
to sell their cotton to them at a price lower than it fetches on the market. According to activists,
this created a source of debt and economic stress, ultimately suicides, among farmers.
Increasing costs in farming associated with decreasing yields even with use of BT cotton seeds
are often quoted cause of distress among farmers in central India. Scholars say that this Bt
[56]

cotton theory made certain assumptions and ignored field reality. [57]
Crop coverage of bio-tech cotton (also called Bt cotton) and farmer suicides over time in Madhya Pradesh India, before and after the introduction of Bt cotton in 2002 [7]

In 2008, a report published by the International Food Policy Research Institute, an agriculture
policy think tankbased in Washington DC, noted that there was an absence of data relating to
"numbers on the actual share of farmers committing suicide who cultivated cotton, let alone Bt
cotton." In order to evaluate the "possible (and hypothetical)" existence of a connection the
[45][58] [58]

study employed a "second-best" assessment of evidence relating to farmer suicides firstly, and to
the effects of Bt cotton secondly. The analysis revealed that there was no "clear general
[58]

relationship between Bt cotton and farmer suicides" but also stated that it could not reject the
[59]

"potential role of Bt cotton varieties in the observed discrete increase in farmer suicides in certain
states and years, especially during the peak of 2004 in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra." The [60]

report also noted that farmer suicides predate the official commercial introduction of Bt cotton
by Monsanto Mahyco in 2002 (and its unofficial introduction by Navbharat Seeds in 2001) and
that such suicides were a fairly constant portion of the overall national suicide rate since 1997. [45]

The report noted that while Bt cotton may have been a factor in specific suicides, the
[61]

contribution was likely marginal compared to socio-economic factors. Elsewhere, Gruere et al. [45][61] [7]

discuss the introduction and increase in use of Bt cotton in the state of Madhya Pradesh since
2002, and the observed drop in total suicides among that state's farmers in 2006. They then
question whether the impact of the increase in use of Bt cotton on farmers suicide in Madhya
Pradesh has been to improve or worsen the situation. [7]

In 2011, a review of the evidence regarding the relationship between Bt cotton and farmers'
suicides in India was published in the Journal of Development Studies, also by researchers from
IFPRI, which found that "Available data show no evidence of a 'resurgence' of farmer suicides.
Moreover, Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India." Matin Qaim finds that [62]

Bt cotton is controversial in India, irrespective of the scholarly evidence. Anti-biotech activist

groups in India repeat their claim that there is evidence of link between Bt cotton and farmers
suicides, a claim that is perpetuated by mass media. This linking of farmers suicide and biotech
industry has led to negative opinions in public policy making process. [63]

Stone suggests that the arrival and expansion of GM cotton led to a campaign of
[57]

misinformation, by all sides, exacerbating the farmer's situation; activists have fuelled the
persistence of a legend of failure and rejection of Bt cotton with sensational claims of livestock
death and farmer suicide, while the other side has been incorrectly pronouncing Bt cotton a
major success based on literature that is actually inconclusive. The cotton cash crop farmer's
situation is complex and continues to evolve, suggests Stone. Gilbert, in a 2013 article [57]

published in Nature, states, "contrary to popular myth, the introduction in 2002 of genetically
modified Bt cotton is not associated with a rise in suicide rates among Indian farmers". [64]

In another 2014 review, Ian Plewis states, "the available data does not support the view that
farmer suicides have increased following the introduction of Bt cotton. Taking all states together,
there is evidence to support the hypothesis that the reverse is true: male farmer suicide rates
have actually declined after 2005 having been increasing before then". [65][66]
Misdirection of government subsidies and funds[edit]
As per reports by the central government and NCRB, government farming subsidies from 1993 to
2018 mostly went to producers and dealers of seeds and fertilizers, and not to farmers. In 2017,
Rs. 35,000 crores of loans and subsidies were given to entities in the cities of New Delhi and
Chandigarh, cities that do not have any farmers. Similarly, in Maharashtra, 60% of government
loans and subsidies were given to people and entities residing in Mumbai. This has resulted in
money beign circulated between the government, banks large and small corporations and
politiacians, without any of it reaching farmers, aggravating their woes. Most farmer loans were of
less than Rs. 50,000. [67]

Drought[edit]
Due to poor artificial irrigation facilities, as much as 79.5% of India's farmland relies on flooding
during monsoon season, so inadequate rainfall can cause droughts, making crop failure more
common. In regions that have experienced droughts, crop yields have declined, and food for
[68][69]

cattle has become scarcer. Agricultural regions that have been affected by droughts have
[70]

subsequently seen their suicide rates increase. [71] [72]

Suicide idea[edit]
Patel et al. found that southern Indian states have ten times higher rates of suicides than some
[73]

northern states. This difference, they say, is not because of misclassification of a person's death.
The most common cause for suicide in South India are a combination of social issues, such as
interpersonal and family problems, financial difficulties, and pre-existing mental illness. Suicidal
ideation is as culturally accepted in south India as in some high-income countries. The high
suicide rates in southern states of India may be, suggest Patel el al., in part because of social
[73]

acceptance of suicide as a method to deal with difficulties. Suicide ideation among surviving
family members of farmers' suicide victims is another worry. Recent study shows that almost a
third of suicide survivors (family members left behind) had suicide ideation in one month prior to
assessment. [74]

Maddy's government field surveys[edit]

The Government of Maharashtra, concerned about the highest total number of farmer suicides
among its rural populations, commissioned its own study into reasons. At its behest, Indira
Gandhi Institute of Development Research in Mumbai did field research and found the top [75]

causes of farmers suicides to be: debt, low income and crop failure, family issues such as illness
and inability to pay celebration expenses for daughter's marriage, lack of secondary income
occupations and lack of value-added opportunities. [76]

Statistics[edit]

Farmers and total suicide rates per 100,000 people in India [7][77]
The National Crime Records Bureau of India reported in its 2012 annual report, that 135,445
people committed suicide in India, of which 13,755 were farmers (11.2%). Of these, 5 out of 29 [78]

states accounted for 10,486 farmers suicides (76%) – Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh and Kerala. [5]

In 2011, a total of 135,585 people committed suicide, of which 14,207 were farmers. In 2010, [79]

15,963 farmers in India committed suicide, while total suicides were 134,599. From 1995 to [80]

2013, a total of 296,438 Indian farmers committed suicide. During the same period, about 9.5
[12]

million people died per year in India from other causes including malnutrition, diseases and
suicides that were non-farming related, or about 171 million deaths from 1995 to 2013. [81]

In 2012, the state of Maharashtra, with 3,786 farmers' suicides, accounted for about a quarter of
the all India's farmer suicides total (13,754). From 2009 to 2016, a total of 25,613 farmers
[5]

committed suicide in the state. [82]

Farmer suicides rates in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh – two large states of India by size and
population – have been about 10 times lower than Maharashtra, Kerala and Pondicherry. In [83][84]

2012, there were 745 farmer suicides in Uttar Pradesh, a state with an estimated population of
205.43 million. In 2014, there were eight farmer suicides in Uttar Pradesh.
[85] [86]

According to IFFRI study number of suicides during 2005–09 in Gujarat 387, Kerala 905, Punjab
75 and Tamil Nadu 26. While 1802 farmers committed suicide in Chhattisgarh in 2009 and 1126
[87]

in 2010, its farmers suicide dropped to zero in 2011, leading to accusations of data manipulation.
[88]

According to the 2012 statistics, from the National Crime Records Bureau, the farmer suicides
statistics are as follows (Note: The NCRB lists suicides in the different employment categories,
but it is not necessary that farming or crop-failure is the cause of the suicides listed in the
"farmer" category): [89]

As per National Crime Records Bureau, the number of suicides by farmers and farm labourers
increased to 12,360 in 2014, against 11,772 in 2013. Of these suicides, 5,650 were farmers
[90]

suicides.[91]

As of 2018, the Indian government has not published data on farmer suicides since 2015.
National Crime Records Bureau director Ish Kumar said that the data is under scrutiny and the
report for 2016 is likely to be published later. [92]

show

Farmer suicides in the Indian states (2012)

show

Farmer suicides rate per 100,000 people in the state (2012)

show

Farmer suicides as a % of total suicides in the state (2012)

show

All India figures for Farmer suicides from 1995 to 2015

Farmers versus other professions[edit]

Patel et al., using a representative survey sample based statistical study from 2001 and 2003,
extrapolated likely suicide patterns in 2010 for India. They say suicide deaths in India among
unemployed individuals and individuals in professions other than agricultural work were,
collectively, about three times more frequent than they were in agricultural labourers and
landowning cultivators. Even across professions in rural areas, Patel et al. find suicide among
[73]

agricultural workers (including farmers) in India is not more frequent than any other profession. [73]

The suicide incidence rate in India, on 100,000 farmers basis, is unclear. All estimates are
speculative, because actual total number of farmers by state or India in each year are not
available. Farm suicides per 100,000 farmers can be reliably calculated for 2001, because
accurate data on number of farmers in the country and states is available for 2001 from the
Census of India. The farm suicide rate was 12.9 suicides per 100,000 farmers, which was higher
than the general suicide rate at 10.6 for 2001 in India. By gender, the suicide rate was 16.2
[94]

male farmer suicides per 100,000 male farmers compared to 12.5 male suicides per 100,000 for
general population. Among women, the suicide rate was 6.2 female farmer suicides per 100,000
female farmers compared to 8.5 female suicides per 100,000 for general population. [94]

Total number of farmers[edit]

Annual farmers' suicide incidence rate data on 100,000 farmers basis, depend on estimated total
number of farmers for that year. Estimates for total number of farmers in India vary widely. [95]

Some count the total number of cultivators, some include cultivators and agricultural laborers in
[96]

their definition of total farmers, while others include anyone engaged in any form of farming and
agriculture activity. Estimates for total number of farmers in India, for 2011, accordingly range
[96]

from 95.8 million (8%) to 263 million (22%) to 450 million (38%), out of a total population of over
1.2 billion. Others estimate the total number of farmers in India to be about 600 million (50% of
[95] [97]

total population). With about 14,000 suicides in 2011 by those engaged in farming and
agricultural activities, the different estimates of total farmers has led to different suicide
[98][99]

incidence rate estimates on per 100,000 farmers basis. Additionally, the reliability of official
statistics has been questioned. K. Nagaraj suggests that official data may be overestimating the
number of total farmers in India, and undercounting the total number of farmer suicides every
year. Tom Brass, in contrast, suggests that official census and surveys in India systematically
[96]

underestimate the total number of people engaged in agriculture in India. [100]

Responses to farmers' suicides[edit]

The government appointed a number of inquiries to look into the causes of farmers suicide and
farm related distress in general. Krishak Ayog (National Farmer Commission) visited all suicide
prone farming regions of India, then in 2006 published three reports with its recommendations.
Subsequently, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh visited Vidarbha in 2006 and promised
[101]

a package of ₹110 billion (about $2.4 billion). The families of farmers who had committed suicide
were also offered an ex gratia grant of ₹100,000 (US$1,400) by the government, though this
amount was changed several times. [102]

2006 relief package[edit]

In 2006, the Government of India identified 31 districts in the four states of Andhra Pradesh,
Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Kerala with high relative incidence of farmers suicides. A special
[103]

rehabilitation package was launched to mitigate the distress of these farmers. The package
provided debt relief to farmers, improved supply of institutional credit, improved irrigation
facilities, employed experts and social service personnel to provide farming support services, and
introduced subsidiary income opportunities through horticulture, livestock, dairy and fisheries.
The Government of India also announced an ex-gratia cash assistance from Prime Ministers
National Relief Fund to the farmers. Additionally, among other things, the Government of India
announced: [103]

 In the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, that had received considerable mass media news
coverage on farmer suicides, all farmer families of Vidarbha in six affected districts of
Maharashtra were given a cash sum of ₹05 million (US$72,000) each, to help pay off the
debt principal.

 ₹7.12 billion (US$100 million) in interest owed, as of 30 June 2006, was waived. The
burden of payment was shared equally between the Central and the State government.
 The Government created a special credit vehicle for Vidarbha farmer, to the tune
of ₹12.75 billion (US$180 million). Special teams comprising NABARD and banks were
deputed to ensure fresh credit starts flowing to all farmers of the region.

 An allocation of ₹21.77 billion (US$310 million) was made to improve the irrigation
infrastructure so that the farmers of Vidarbha region had assured irrigation facilities in the
future.
Agricultural debt waiver and debt relief scheme, 2008[edit]
The Government of India next implemented the Agricultural debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme
in 2008 to benefit over 36 million farmers at a cost of ₹653 billion (US$9.4 billion). This spending
was aimed at writing of part of loan principal as well as the interest owed by the farmers. Direct
agricultural loan by stressed farmers under so-called Kisan Credit Card were also to be covered
under this Scheme. [104]

Regional initiatives[edit]
Various state governments in India have launched their own initiatives to help prevent farmer
suicides. The government of Maharashtra set up a dedicated group to deal with farm distress in
2006 known as the Vasantrao Naik Sheti Swavlamban Mission, based in Amravati. A group to [105]

study the Farmers Suicides was also constituted by the Government of Karnataka under the
Chairmanship of Dr Veeresh, Former Vice-Chancellor of Agricultural University and Prof
Deshpande as member. [106][full citation needed]

Maharashtra Bill to regulate farmer loan terms, 2008 [edit]

The State government of Maharashtra, one of the most farmer suicide affected states, passed
the Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2008 to regulate all private money lending to farmers. The
bill set maximum not legally allowed interest rates on any loans to farmers, setting it to be slightly
above the money lending rate by Reserve Bank of India, and it also covered pending loans. [107]

Maharashtra relief package, 2010 [edit]

The State Government of Maharashtra made it illegal, in 2010, for non-licensed moneylenders
from seeking loan repayment. The State Government also announced that it will form Village [76]

Farmer Self Help Groups to disburse government financed loans, a low rate Crop Insurance
program whose premium will be paid 50% by farmer and 50% by government, and the launch of
alternate income opportunities such as poultry, dairy, and sericulture for farmers in suicide-prone
districts. The government further announced that it will finance a marriage fund under
its Samudaik Lagna with ₹10 million (US$140,000) per year per district, for community marriage
celebrations, where many couples get married at the same time to help minimise the cost of
marriage celebrations – a cause of suicides among farmers as identified by its own study. [76]

Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2012 [edit]

Kerala, in 2012, amended the Kerala Farmers' Debt Relief Commission Act, 2006 to extend
benefits to all distressed farmers with loans through 2011. It cited continuing farmer suicides as a
motivation. [108]

2013 diversify income sources package[edit]

In 2013, the Government of India launched a Special Livestock Sector and Fisheries Package for
farmers suicide-prone regions of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Kerala. The
package was aimed to diversify income sources of farmers. The total welfare package consisted
of ₹912 million (US$13 million). [109]

Effectiveness of government response[edit]

The government's response and relief packages have generally been ineffective, misdirected
and flawed, states Surinder Sud. It has focused on credit and loan, rather than income,
[110]
productivity and farmer prosperity. Assistance in paying off outstanding principal and interest
helps the money lenders, but has failed to create reliable and good sources of income for the
farmer going forward. The usurious moneylenders continue to offer loans at interest rates
between 24 and 50 percent, while income generating potential of the land the farmer works on
has remained low and subject to weather conditions. Sud states that the government has failed
[110]

to understand that debt relief just postpones the problem and a more lasting answer to farmer
distress can only come from reliable income sources, higher crop yields per hectare, irrigation
and other infrastructure security. Golait, in a Reserve Bank of India paper, acknowledged the
[110] [111]

positive role of crop diversification initiative announced in government's response to reports of

farmer suicides. Golait added, "Indian agriculture still suffers from: i) poor productivity, ii) falling
water levels, iii) expensive credit, iv) a distorted market, v) many middlemen and intermediaries
who increase cost but do not add much value, vi) laws that stifle private investment, vii)
controlled prices, viii) poor infrastructure, and ix) inappropriate research. Thus the approach with
mere emphasis on credit in isolation from the above factors will not help agriculture".
Furthermore, recommended Golait, a more pro-active role in creating and maintaining reliable
[111]

irrigation and other agriculture infrastructure is necessary to address farmer distress in India. [111]

International comparison[edit]
Farmers suicide is a global phenomenon. Outside India, studies in Sri Lanka, USA, Canada and
Australia have identified farming as a high stress profession that is associated with a higher
suicide rate than the general population. This is particularly true among small scale farmers and
after periods of economic distress. Fraser et al., similarly, after a review of 52 scholarly
[44]

publications, conclude that farming populations in the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia,
Canada and the United States have the highest rates of suicide of any industry and there is
growing evidence that those involved in farming are at higher risk of developing mental health
problems. Their review claims a wide range of reasons behind farmers suicide globally including
mental health issues, physical environment, family problems, economic stress and uncertainties.
Significantly higher suicide rate among farmers than general population have been reported in
[112]

developed countries such as the UK and the US. [113][114][115]

In popular culture[edit]
Summer 2007 by producer Atul Pandey, focused on the issue of farmer suicides in
Maharashtra's Vidarbha region, as did the 2010 Bollywood films Kissan,* Peepli Live (2010) and
Thamizh film, Kaththi (2014) . Prior to this The Dying Fields, a documentary directed by Fred de
[116]

Sam Lazaro was aired in August 2007 on Wide Angle (TV series). The 2010 award-winning
film Jhing Chik Jhing is based around the emotive issue of farmer suicides in Maharashtra. It
looks at how the farmer has very little in his control and looks at the impact of indebtedness on
his family.
In 2006, a documentary by Indian film maker Sumit Khanna titled Mere Desh Ki Dharti, did a
comprehensive review about farming. A well researched and in-depth understanding of the
agrarian crisis, it won the national award for the best Investigative film. [citation needed]

The 2008, Article, "Opportunities in the Indian Agricultural Sector for the New Generation of
Entrepreneurs, Leaders and Managers" Authors, Dr. Ashish Manohar Urkude, Professor-Alliance
Business School, Bangalore, India; and Mr. Shriram Rambhau Thosar, Deputy Director,
Department of Agriculture Soil Testing and Soil Survey India, Akola, Maharashtra, India:
URL: http://indianmba.com/Faculty_Column/FC703/fc703.html
In 2009, the International Museum of Women included an examination of the impact of farmers'
suicides on the lives of the farmers' wives and children in their exhibition Economica: Women
and the Global Economy. Their slideshow "Growing Debt" and accompanying essay by curator
Masum Momaya entitled "Money of Her Own" showed how many widows were left with the
burden of their husbands' debts, and were forced to work as indentured servants to repay the
debt. The widows were also unlikely to remarry, because other men in the community were
unwilling to take on the widows' debts for themselves. [117]
In 2014, a Kollywood movie was released under the name Kaththi and the story revolves around
a fictional tale about Kathiresan and Jeevanantham (both portrayed by Joseph Vijay) focuses on
the issue of farmers committing suicide due to corporate encroachment.
The 2001 film Lagaan describes some of the pressures faced by Indian farmers and members of
rural communities, and how the British Raj exacerbated those pressures. Lagaan won 44
[118]

awards and was nominated for an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film.