With the new parameters, the number
of farmer suicides in 2014 falls to 5,650. That is less than half their 2013
figure of 11,772. This happens simply because of the
shuffling of the suicide numbers across new or revised categories in the NCRB
tables. The “fall” in farmer suicides accompanies a
stunning increase in suicides by “Others”. Karnataka, the second worst State
for such suicides in the country, saw 321 farmers take their
lives in 2014. That is a big drop from the previous year’s figure of 1,403. In
the same 12 months, though, suicide numbers in the
“Others” column of that State went up by 245 per cent. From 1,482 to
5,120 suicides. On average, the five worst States for farmer
suicides saw a rise of 128 per cent in suicides by “Others”.
The NCRB 2014 data also record
thousands of tenant farmer suicides as those committed by “agricultural
labourers”. This too helps dilute the numbers in the main
“farmers” column in a big way. By the NCRB’s own admission, there has been no
data audit of its new numbers. The agency simply says
that it has “already decided to organise data audit in the year on random basis”.
(Read: they will now audit numbers already published as
authentic.) Nor were policemen at the lowest level stations—those who record
the data—trained for this new exercise.
There is little explanation of how
the data for the new/revised categories in the NCRB’s Accidental Deaths
& Suicides in India 2014 are collected. And when it comes to
causes, the report goes, as always, by what State governments say were
distressdriven suicides. Even so, the number of farmer suicides
since 1995 touches 3,02,116. And while the changes render comparisons dubious,
the aggregate figure across all farmrelated
suicides, at 12,336, is marginally higher than in 2013.
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (including
Telangana), Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh are the “Big 5” States
of farmer suicides. For a decade, they logged
twothirds of all such suicides in the country. In the new accounting, the Big
5 States recorded well over 90 per cent of all farmers’
suicides in 2014. Maharashtra, whose 20year total now stands at 63,318,
witnessed over 45 per cent of all farmer suicides in the country
last year. However, serious questions on the changes in categories remain
unanswered. As do even more troubling ones on the data
collection.
A heavy distortion of the data
began with Chhattisgarh in 2011. The State had, by its own count, averaged
1,555 farm suicides each year between 2006 and 2010. In 2011, it
went to zero, cold turkey. It declared nil farm suicides that year, four
in 2012 and zero again in 2013. West Bengal followed suit
from 2012. Others too began to massage their numbers. Farm suicides had become
a politically damaging issue. Now, with new
categories and columns to shuffle the deaths across, State governments can more
easily reduce the numbers in the main farmers group.
The new (sub) categories include: farmers owning their land, those working on
contract/lease, agricultural labourers and more.
According to
the NCRB, there is “no reclassification” here. “Just further
segregation” of a table that it has published for 19 years: “Self
The constable at the lowest police
station in a district will apparently lay down whether the person who has
committed suicide is a farmer, a cultivator, a tenant, a landowner or a
labourer. Something that is difficult even for a trained surveyor. The NCRB
does say that the “data is based on official records of police stations”. The
data on unnatural deaths (UDs) are fed to the District Crime Records Bureaus
(DCRBs). And upwards to the State crime records bureaus (SCRBs), which format
them and send them on to the NCRB.
The NCRB says that it, in fact,
held a “onemonth rigorous training of trainers (ToT)” last year. That is, for
officials of the SCRBs. These are people located in State
capitals. Not at the local police stations. “The trained officials of the
SCRBs,” says the NCRB, “were requested to impart similar
training for concerned officials of the DCRBs/police stations of their
respective States for data feeding.” Did the SCRBs ever do that? It just
never happened. Officials at the police stations we contacted in high
farmsuicide regions like Vidarbha in Maharashtra and Mandya
in Karnataka seemed baffled. So were top police officials in four of the Big 5
states. “We know of no circular asking us to collect
or collate the data this way, recording those categories,” said a senior police
official in Andhra Pradesh.
In Maharashtra, the worstaffected
State, senior police officials we contacted were only aware of a 2006 State
government circular on the farm crisis. “That required us
to report any farm suicide to the District Collector,” said one officer. He
also forwarded us a copy of the circular.
The NCRB report itself reflects the
confusion the new moves have caused. The second paragraph of its note on farmer
suicides says quite correctly: “Farmers include
those who own and work on field (viz. cultivators) as well as those who employ/hire
workers for field work/farming activities. It
excludes agricultural labourers.” Then how do the latter fit into a
table of “selfemployed”?
The NCRB knows there is a problem.
And senior officials admit that only those whose tenancy has been recorded
would have been counted. Yet, it also says: “NCRB
at present does not intend to carry out detailed study on tenancy rights/issues
which varies from State to State.” Alas, that is
precisely the point. The recording or lack of it, of tenant farmers is a mess
that wrecks the 2014 data. “The NCRB 2014 misclassifies many tenant
farmers as agricultural labourers,” says AllIndia Kisan Sabha (AIKS) vice
president Malla Reddy.
Within their limits, the NCRB data gave us a
fair trend, if not accurate figures, for 19 years. Now that integrity is badly
compromised.
Why did the government feel
the need to reclassify farm suicides data? Were the numbers proving to be an
embarrassment? Hence a need to prove that the data—which
are entirely gathered by arms of the government—were an overestimation?
The NCRB says format
revisions are routine. “A regular exercise considering the data requests of
various stakeholders.” They say there is nothing on record to show that the
government or any particular agency sought the revision. However, it does seem
that the agency acted on a “request” from the
Agriculture Ministry in 2013 (the time of Sharad Pawar as Agriculture
Minister).
Sources Collected from- Frontline