Farmer Suicide Should Be Considered a National Calamity!

There is an atmosphere of war across the world. In places like Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Iran, Gaza, Palestine, Syria, Houthi, and Cambodia-Thailand, there have been violent outbreaks. Fires rage daily, buildings collapse, and people are dying.

There are tensions on the India-Pakistan and China-Taiwan borders. NATO countries are preparing against Russia. No one knows when an explosion might occur.

In all these places, the US President is taking a central role, thanks to two strengths: military stockpiles and commercial prowess. While discussing the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, the United States repeatedly referred to trade agreements, and similarly for Cambodia-Thailand. The US is also threatening Russia and Iran with trade sanctions.

America issues trade threats and smaller countries usually submit. This is the current picture of the world. We need to understand its significance for us.

We often assert that India is a massive marketplace. Our population is nearing 1.5 billion—the largest in the world. But can we threaten any country with trade restrictions? And even if we did, would it matter? The answer is ‘no.’ We do not export any goods that another nation is utterly dependent on or whose absence would severely damage their economy. We export medicines to the US, but America is not entirely dependent on us for pharmaceuticals. Stopping our exports would not result in widespread deaths there.

What is the scale of our exports? What share do we have in the world’s total exports? Combined services and goods account for just 3%. If we exclude services, our share in global goods exports is only 1.8%. That means we are not strong enough to flex our muscles through exports. China’s share is the highest at 11%, which enables it to stand up to the US. America is second with 7%. Our relative position is not great.

The real measure of a country’s development is the per capita income of its citizens. If one calculates per capita income by dividing total income by total population, it can be misleading due to disparities between the richest (like Adani, Ambani) and the poorest (workers, farmers). We need to examine the income of those at the bottom. An Indian farmer’s annual income from agriculture and animal husbandry is ₹64,500, while in China it is almost double that at around ₹1.25 lakh, and the US tops the list at ₹8.1 million (₹81 lakh). There’s also a huge gap in facilities provided to farmers.

Note that India is an importer nation, and the government is the largest importer—mainly of petroleum. Most goods and services imported serve only a limited section of the population. India ranks 11th among goods-importing nations, and the share of imports, including petroleum, is 2.8%; excluding petroleum, it’s just about 1%.

So even as an importer, we cannot threaten anyone. The root of this weakness lies in our agricultural system.

Our policymakers have thought about farmers only enough to secure votes. No comprehensive, development-oriented approach to agriculture has been adopted. Ineffective schemes like subsidies, loan waivers, and honorariums have been implemented, which have not truly benefited farmers, resulting in lakhs of farmer suicides. Farmer suicide should have been recognized as a national calamity, but that didn’t happen, and this is why we’ve fallen behind.

After independence, the Zamindari Abolition Act was introduced, followed by the Tenancy Act and, around 1960, the Land Ceiling Act. Land holdings were fragmented into small parcels, but it was never considered that this fragmentation would have such a massive negative impact. Today, 85% of landholdings are less than 2 acres. Those who lost land were left destitute, and those who received land also faced hardship. Due to the ceiling laws, we never saw the development of large-scale farmer-owned companies. Despite natural blessings, India is lagging behind in agriculture.

The Essential Commodities Act created an artificial system for price suppression. Market committees fostered bizarre situations where sellers outnumbered buyers. All governments, regardless of party, have cruelly used these laws. The current BJP government has not shown any flexibility here.

Land Acquisition laws have also acted like a hanging sword, discouraging investment in the sector.

These three laws together have paralyzed large parts of the country. Farmers could never become effective consumers. To change this scenario, all three laws must be abolished, which would gradually restructure the sector. Processing industries would develop, per capita income in agriculture would rise, and India could finally wield some influence as an importer. In the next phase, our agriculture sector could even become dominant in exports.

No country can thrive on just four industrialists—strength lies in building on the nation’s natural advantages. Agriculture is India’s strength; if we streamline agricultural systems, the country can face any global challenge.

America’s trade-based strategy should be evaluated through our own context.

◆ Author Amar Habib (Ambajogai) is a renowned journalist who has written on farming and farmers for five decades. He is the founder of the Kisanputra Andolan.