Manoj's World

Interviews of Amartya Sen

By Amit Roy in GRAPHITI, The Telegraph Magazine 13 August 2006

But he felt that Tony Blair’s Labour Government, for which he had, incidentally, voted, had made serious policy blunders by endorsing the setting up of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faith schools and encouraging a society where people were defined almost exclusively by their religious identities.

“It overlooks the way Christian schools have evolved and often provide a much more tolerant atmosphere than a purely religious school would.”

“But the new generation of Muslim, Hindu and Sikh schools (in Britain) are not going to be like that. It’s something which is bad; educationally, it’s not good for the children. From the point of view of national unity, it’s dreadful because even before a child begins to think, it’s being defined by its ‘community’, which is primarily religion.”

He argues: “We have many different identities because we belong to many different groups. Those who see human beings – in John Donne’s words – as an ‘island’ make a mistake. We are not connected only with one group; we are connected with many. We are connected with our profession, occupation, class, gender, political views, language, literature, taste in music, involvement in social issues – and also religion. But just to separate out religion as one singularly important identity that has over-arching importance compared with all other identities is a mistake.”

He recons that Gandhi “would have been pleased” had he been able to foresee that 60 years after Indian independence, the President, Prime Minister and the leader of the ruling party would turn out to be Muslim, Sikh and Christian respectively in a country where 80 percent of the voters are Hindu (italics mine).

'Hope India Now Doesn't Get Too Hung Up On Cultivating Power To Feel For The Other Side!'

The estimation of India as a global player should not become as much in excess of reality now as it was below it in the past.

ASHISH KUMAR SEN interviews Amartya Sen

Outlook:Special Issue: I Day Special

Nobel laureate Amartya Sen finds it hard not to feel frustrated about India. For problems he had "grumbled" about in the '50s and early '60s—illiteracy, lack of basic healthcare, social inequality, discrimination against girls—still persist even today. Until recently the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, Prof Sen now serves as Lamont University Professor at Harvard University where he teaches Economics and Philosophy. Born in Santiniketan, he studied in Presidency College, Calcutta, and Trinity College, Cambridge. A proud Indian, he still holds on to his Indian citizenship and cares passionately about his roots. Prof Sen's books have been translated into more than 30 languages, and include the much-acclaimed The Argumentative Indian, and his most recent work Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. Prof Sen talked to Ashish Kumar Sen on why the world has started to see India differently. Excerpts from an interview:

Is there a change in the world's perception of India?

Yes indeed. It's very hard to miss that there is a substantial change. It's to a great extent a correction that was needed. However, what we have to watch is that the estimation of India as a global player does not become as much in excess of reality now as it was below it in the past.

Do you think the estimation of India as a global player is already in excess of reality?

This has not happened yet to any great extent, since there is such a backlog of underestimation from the past (China, for example, is only beginning to take India more seriously, after looking down on India fairly substantially for many decades). But since the elevation of India in global estimation is very pleasing to many Indians, there is a danger here of complacency which we have to be careful to avoid.

What explains this change in perception: is it related to the fact that India is doing things differently? Or is it more because India has chosen to forsake its socialist past and embrace a model of economic growth that has the endorsement of global powers, notably the United States?

I'm not sure what you mean by India's socialist past. A country that failed to achieve the most elementary progress that most socialist countries in the world achieved easily (despite their failures in many other fields), namely universal schooling and basic education supported by the state, primary healthcare for all provided by the state, comprehensive land reforms and so on which pre-reform Russia, pre-reform China, Cuba, Vietnam and other socialist countries achieved, can hardly be described as a socialist country. If, however, by 'socialism' you mean an over-extended and counterproductive state-based system of license raj, stifling domestic enterprise and the development of modern industries and the modern services sector, then certainly that change has been important, though it need not involve any necessary abandonment of the ideal of egalitarian humanism that has been central to the socialist vision presented by Jawaharlal Nehru and others who led India to political independence.

Correcting policy mistakes by taking a closer look at reality is beneficial mainly for the country itself, but the fact that this is happening via the removal of the license raj brings respect from abroad too, and that has certainly been a factor here. The changed position of the United States is, however, mainly because of the end of the Cold War in which India tried to be non-aligned in a way that the US certainly did not approve. The nature of global politics has itself changed—the change is not confined just to India.

One reason for the change in perceptions of India is the achievements of its diaspora, particularly in the US and the United Kingdom.

What does the diaspora mean for India? Should India be basking in its glory?

Certainly the diaspora's success abroad has played a big part in greater interest in India and also helped a fuller appreciation of the creative talents in India. There is however no question of basking in the glory of the diaspora since its achievements, while important, are limited and the job that needs to be done at home, especially through removing poverty, illiteracy and bad healthcare have an urgency that the success of the diaspora does not in any way reduce. It's also important to recognise that India's success as a functioning democracy, with a relatively free media, regular multi-party elections and a lively civil society has also helped the diaspora gain respect and acceptance abroad.

India can't be described as a socialist country, it's failed to achieve the elementary progress that most such countries have.

While there have been domestic failures, for example in basic education and healthcare, India's domestic success, through a flourishing democracy and progress in advanced higher education and technical skill formation, has given the diaspora an easy entry into global civil society—and that too must not be underestimated.

The consumption pattern of urban middle-class Indians is becoming increasingly similar to their counterparts of the West. From household goods to food to cultural products, there is now a close resemblance between Indians and those in the West. Are Indians becoming increasingly similar to their counterparts in the West? If so, what are the perils of this trend?

The increase in global contact and association has led to much greater homogeneity of the consumption of the rich across the world—it is not an isolated trend exclusive to India (you see it in Rio, Accra and Johannesburg as well as in Mumbai and Shanghai).

This is, in a basic form, an age-old phenomenon. I have discussed in my book The Argumentative Indian how the consumption pattern of rich Indians changed in the early centuries AD, because of the trade in luxury products from China (with plentiful references in Indian literature, including Kalidasa and Bana), to Chinese silk, Chinese fruits, Chinese cosmetics used by the rich. But this is happening on a much larger scale in the contemporary world.

The basic problem is not what commodities the rich spend their money on, but that the economic gap between the rich and the poor is so large and also that it is growing (it has not grown as fast as in China, but it has certainly grown in significant ways). In fact, it is the existence and the expansion of this gap that we have to address. This may be an inevitable part of the price to pay to retain high-skill technical experts within the country and realism may well require that this connection be taken into account. But social ethics also demands that we examine—with realism but also with a sense of equity—what is really inescapable and what can be done to reduce the divergent fortunes of the rich and very rich on the one hand, and the poor and very poor on the other. This is not just a matter of the commodity pattern of the consumption of the rich.

Having said that, however, I should also mention that there is still at least one special problem in the hold of modern Western consumption patterns on the rich in India—and in other poor countries. The labour component in the production of these 'modern amenities' is often quite low in comparison with the older patterns of luxury consumption (for example, widespread services provided directly by unskilled labour), and this can have a negative effect on labour demand and through that on employment. This is not in itself a strong enough reason to curb that type of consumption through government control, but it is a reason to pay special attention to the critical role of employment generation in the process of economic development and to see what can be done to address this issue.

Even as India strives to become a global power, politically and economically its social indices remain poor. In terms of human development, India lags far behind. Has India become less caring? How does it dovetail with India's quest to become a global power? And what kind of future do you envisage for the poor as India changes?

You are absolutely right to point to India's relatively poor record in human development. This is not a new phenomenon, so it is not a question of India becoming 'less caring' than in the past, but the old problem of the neglect of social facilities and of the development of human capabilities which has not been adequately addressed or removed.

It is hard for me not to feel frustrated when I look at some of the things I wrote in the media in the 1950s and early 1960s—grumbling about illiteracy, lack of basic health facilities etc...they still remain relevant. I would have loved to have become a purveyor of obsolete problems, but alas these problems are not obsolete even now. More attention is certainly being paid by the present government to elementary healthcare and other basic failures in capability formation. But much more needs to be done, without shutting off other good things like the expansion of Indian industries, extension of its global economic connections, development of more technological sectors, greater attention to physical infrastructure. These too are potentially helpful developments for reducing economic deprivation, but they are not adequate in themselves in eliminating India's handicap in human development.

Post-9/11, India's democratic example has been hailed worldwide. Yet the last 10-15 years have seen the emergence of unstable polity, rise of religious fundamentalism, and the trend among lower castes to move away from strengthening of the politics of identity? Do you think this in itself is mainstream parties like the Congress. What explains the reaction to globalisation, and the shift in our politics from concentrating on 'poor India' to 'shining India'?

This is an important subject, but I don't think it is globalisation that is the source of the problem here. Indeed, as a successful democracy, India's ability to tackle these problems demands democratic politicisation of issues of poverty and social backwardness, which is entirely compatible with a more thriving participation of India in the global world. The exploitation of divisive identities, by focusing on our contrasts and conflicts, neglecting other identities that unite people in different ways, is a phenomenon that has plagued the world persistently. The field of divisive action has changed, but the basic problem of the exploitability of one division or another—forgetting everything else—remains. World War I was fed by the division of national identities, with the British, the Germans and the French tearing each other apart. Now the most exploited source of belligerent identity is linked to religious divisions, and here, despite tendencies in that direction unleashed particularly by religious majoritarianism, India's democracy has helped to reduce and restrain the divisive exploitation of communal differences.

Indeed, in the reading of the outcome of the 2004 general elections, while there are many local factors involved, it would be hard to overlook the real presence of a general disapproval in the country of communal fanaticism (especially after what happened in Gujarat in 2002). Nor can we overlook a strong desire to reassert a commitment to the poor rather than taking the 'shining' of the middle classes to be itself adequate. More can, however, be done in these respects and they demand greater political engagement with the entire population—not just some sections of it to the exclusion of others.

However, you are also absolutely right that the fragmentation of lower caste movements into divisive groups, rather than providing a united front for social equity, has been a negative influence. It is the task of the socially committed political leaders of today to focus more fully on the shared challenges of economic poverty, social deprivation, gender inequality and other defects that require a joint approach, rather than a divisive outlook that splits the deprived groups into mutually hostile segments.

To what extent is this change in perception an outcome of globalisation, where knowledge of English has become a skill that counts. A large number of Indians, even in villages, want to go through the English system of education. What do you think could be the perils of this trend?

Certainly globalisation has made English something like a lingua franca of the world. We have to accept that, without seeing globalisation and the spread of English as a necessarily problematic phenomenon. Indeed, I do not see the wide interest in learning English as a regressive force, since the use of the English language both allows India to speak to the world and serves as the medium through which Indians from across the country can share their technical knowledge and social and political dialogue. If the interest in English were to eclipse the interest in India's enormously rich languages, with its rich literature and long histories, that would be a loss, but that is not the situation now and future dangers too can be avoided through giving the issue our conscious attention. It is possible to be both interested in the richness of India's own culture and heritage and take an interest in the cultures and achievements of the rest of the world, in exactly the way that Rabindranath Tagore discussed so eloquently and convincingly. There is no necessary conflict between 'the home' and 'the world', if we continue to stand on our own feet and look at the world with interest and involvement, rather than with docility and slavishness.

What has to be watched, however, is the possibility that the role of English acts as a serious barrier for the underprivileged to get their voices heard whenever they are expressed in other languages. The linguistic divide can also contribute to the strengthening of economic divisions. These are, however, issues that can be addressed through intelligent and humane government policy, rather than our seeing them as inescapable problems that make the use of English irresistibly retrograde.

The attributes of power you'd want India to acquire?

I fear I am not a great believer in power as a source of redemption. Power is mainly the dividing line that separates the powerful from the powerless. Having been on the powerless side in the world for so long, I hope India does not get too hung up on cultivating power to be on the other side! The really important powers to acquire would come not so much from India's nuclear arsenal or missiles, but from our ability to help in solving the problems that ail the world today, which, alas, are too plentiful. We have something to offer through our experience of a working democracy (not just the rhetoric of democracy, delivered through invading armies) and sustained secularism (tested but still thriving in India), and these are not negligible issues in the thoroughly messed-up world today. If we do try to be good global players in the confused world in which we live, then a bigger global voice for India would indeed be an excellent thing.

There is a further issue about power. There is a positive role for the empowerment of the underprivileged groups within India—the landless labourers, the subjugated housewives, the economically deprived making a precarious living, the social underdogs maltreated by the privileged, and others.If we are concerned with inequality, then inequality of power must command our attention. And if a reduction of inequality of power within India is seen as making India as a whole more "powerful," then we may sensibly want "more power" in that rather special sense. We have to think more critically and more fully about exactly what powers we want, in what sense, and precisely what we want to do with power. Having more power is not a virtue in itself.

Mr. Bhaskar Save

There were no social laws and religion when people used to hunt in groups except sharing of the proceeds of hunting together as per their level of hungers (may not be because they wanted to, but most likely because they were not equipped with the technology of preservation).

When one of the world’s greatest scientists understood the plant life cycle, agricultural science and economics were born simultaneously.

Some very smart and enterprising people realised that more land tilled by more of their people would yield more money and power and felt the need for religion as well as all-encompassing social laws (including marriage) to control the people under their command. Philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his book Marriage and Morals, said “In early agricultural and pastoral communities both wives and children were an economic asset to man. …. Consequently, the most powerful men aimed at having as many wives as possible.”

Those communities respected and obeyed Mother Nature and natural laws. Subsequently, many Economists, Scientists, Engineers and above all, the power-hungry politicians all over the world, funded by equally power hungry individuals, consciously and systematically tried to destroy Mother Nature in their vein attempt to control her.

Mr. Bhaskar Save, an octogenarian defiant farmer of a village in Gujrat, in his open letter to Mr. M.S. Swaminathan, supposedly the father of “Green Revolution” in our country aptly says “The mindset of servitude to 'commerce and industry,' ignoring all else, is the root of the problem. But industry merely transforms 'raw materials' sourced from Nature into commodities. It cannot create anew. Only Nature is truly creative and self-regenerating – through synergy with the fresh daily inflow of the sun's energy.” He quotes Vinova Bhave - “Science wedded to compassion can bring about a paradise on earth. But divorced from non-violence, it can only cause a massive conflagration that swallows us in its flames."

All of us are aware of the devastations brought about by the nuclear bombs created by some uncompassionate scientists in the interest of a few lunatic power-hungry politicians.

The natural scientist Mr. Bhaskar Save made me, a so-called Engineer who crossed to the senior citizen world recently, ashamed and guilt-stricken as with so called formal education, I failed to stand up like him and accepted with open arms anything and everything that the western world dumped on us in the name of economic, scientific & technological progress, without ever establishing their usefulness in our environment beyond doubt. I overlooked the huge gap between “modern technology” and “appropriate technology”.

I salute Mr. Bhaskar Save, a natural scientist to my mind, who stood up in a small village in Gujrat and registered his protest by his actions.

As a tribute to him, I am attaching his open letter to Mr. M.S. Swaminathan in the fond hope that those of you, who care, would ponder over what is modern and what is appropriate for our beloved country. And where I failed, at least one amongst you would have enough courage to stand up and say “enough is enough”. If any you think that it is futile, may I request the same person to forward Mr. Bhaskar Save’s open letter to your acquaintances so that one amongst them stands up.

Please remember (as the Haida Indian saying goes) “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”

Open Letter

From: Bhaskar Save, 'Kalpavruksha' Farm,

Village Dehri, via Umergam,

Dist. Valsad, Gujarat – 396 170

(Phone: 0260 – 2562126 & 2563866)

To: Shri M.S. Swaminathan,

The Chairperson, National Commission on Farmers,

Ministry of Agriculture, Govt. of India

July 29, 2006

Subject: Mounting Suicides and National Policy for Farmers

Dear Shri Swaminathan,

I am an 84-year old natural/organic farmer with more than six decades of personal experience in growing a wide range of food crops. I have, over the years, practised several systems of farming, including the chemical method in the fifties – until I soon saw its pitfalls.

I say with conviction that it is only by organic farming in harmony with Nature, that India can sustainably provide her people abundant, wholesome food. And meet every basic need of all – to live in health, dignity and peace.

[Annexed hereto are: (1) a concise comparison of chemical farming and organic farming; (2) an introduction to my farm, Kalpavruksha; (3) some recorded opinions of visitors; and (4) a short biographical note on myself.

You, M.S. Swaminathan, are considered the 'father' of India's so-called 'Green Revolution' that flung open the floodgates of toxic 'agro' chemicals – ravaging the lands and lives of many millions of Indian farmers over the past 50 years. More than any other individual in our long history, it is you I hold responsible for the tragic condition of our soils and our debt-burdened farmers, driven to suicide in increasing numbers every year.

As destiny would have it, you are presently the chairperson of the 'National Commission on Farmers', mandated to draft a new agricultural policy. I urge you to take this opportunity to make amends – for the sake of the children, and those yet to come.

I understand your Commission is inviting the views of farmers for drafting the new policy. As this is an open consultation, I am marking a copy of my letter to: the Prime Minister, the Union Minister for Agriculture, the Chairperson of the National Advisory Council, and to the media - for wider communication. I hope this provokes some soul-searching and open debate at all levels on the extremely vital issues involved. – So that we do not repeat the same kind of blunders that led us to our present, deep festering mess.

The great poet, Rabindranath Tagore, referred not so long ago to our "sujhalam, sufalam" land. Ours indeed was a remarkably fertile and prosperous country – with rich soils, abundant water and sunshine, thick forests, a wealth of bio-diversity, … And cultured, peace-loving people with a vast store of farming knowledge and wisdom.

Farming runs in our blood. But I am sad that our (now greyed) generation of Indian farmers, allowed itself to be duped into adopting the short-sighted and ecologically devastating way of farming, imported into this country. – By those like you, with virtually zero farming experience!

For generations beyond count, this land sustained one of the highest densities of population on earth. Without any chemical 'fertilizers', pesticides, exotic dwarf strains of grain, or the new, fancy 'bio-tech' inputs that you now seem to champion. The many waves of invaders into this country, over the centuries, took away much. But the fertility of our land remained unaffected.

The Upanishads say:

Om Purnamadaha

Purnamidam Purnat Purnamudachyate

Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamewa Vashishyate

"This creation is whole and complete.

From the whole emerge creations, each whole and complete.

Take the whole from the whole, but the whole yet remains,

Undiminished, complete!"

In our forests, the trees like ber (jujube), jambul (jambolan), mango, umbar (wild fig), mahua (Madhuca indica), imli (tamarind), … yield so abundantly in their season that the branches sag under the weight of the fruit. The annual yield per tree is commonly over a tonne – year after year. But the earth around remains whole and undiminished. There is no gaping hole in the ground!

From where do the trees – including those on rocky mountains – get their water, their NPK, etc? Though stationary, Nature provides their needs right where they stand. But 'scientists' and technocrats like you – with a blinkered, meddling itch – seem blind to this. On what basis do you prescribe what a tree or plant requires, and how much, and when…?

It is said: where there is lack of knowledge, ignorance masquerades as 'science'! Such is the 'science' you have espoused, leading our farmers astray – down the pits of misery. While it is no shame to be ignorant, the awareness of such ignorance is the necessary first step to knowledge. But the refusal to see it is self-deluding arrogance.

.

Agricultural Mis-education

This country has more than 150 agricultural universities, many with huge land-holdings of thousands of acres. They have no dearth of infrastructure, equipment, staff, money, … And yet, not one of these heavily subsidized universities makes any profit, or grows any significant amount of food, if only to feed its own staff and students. But every year, each churns out several hundred 'educated' unemployables, trained only in misguiding farmers and spreading ecological degradation.

In all the six years a student spends for an M. Sc. in agriculture, the only goal is short-term – and narrowly perceived – 'productivity'. For this, the farmer is urged to do and buy a hundred things. But not a thought is spared to what a farmer must never do so that the land remains unharmed for future generations and other creatures. It is time our people and government wake up to the realisation that this industry-driven way of farming – promoted by our institutions – is inherently criminal and suicidal!

Gandhi declared: Where there is soshan, or exploitation, there can be no poshan, or nurture! Vinoba Bhave added, "Science wedded to compassion can bring about a paradise on earth. But divorced from non-violence, it can only cause a massive conflagration that swallows us in its flames."

Trying to increase Nature's 'productivity,' is the fundamental blunder that highlights the ignorance of 'agricultural scientists' like you. Nature, unspoiled by man, is already most generous in her yield. When a grain of rice can reproduce a thousand-fold within months, where arises the need to increase its productivity?

Numerous kinds of fruit trees too yield several hundred thousand kg of nourishment each in their lifetime! That is, provided the farmer does not pour poison and mess around the tree in his greed for quick profit. A child has a right to its mother's milk. But if we draw on Mother Earth's blood and flesh as well, how can we expect her continuing sustenance!

The mindset of servitude to 'commerce and industry,' ignoring all else, is the root of the problem. But industry merely transforms 'raw materials' sourced from Nature into commodities. It cannot create anew. Only Nature is truly creative and self-regenerating – through synergy with the fresh daily inflow of the sun's energy.

The Six Self-renewing Paribals of Nature

There is on earth a constant inter-play of the six paribals (key factors) of Nature, interacting with sunlight. Three are: air, water and soil. Working in tandem with these, are the three orders of life: ' vanaspati srushti' (the world of plants), 'jeev srushti' (the realm of insects and micro-organisms), and 'prani srushti' (the animal kingdom). These six paribals maintain a dynamic balance. Together, they harmonise the grand symphony of Nature, weaving the new!

Man has no right to disrupt any of the paribals of Nature. But modern technology, wedded to commerce – rather than wisdom or compassion – has proved disastrous at all levels... We have despoiled and polluted the soil, water and air. We have wiped out most of our forests and killed its creatures; … And relentlessly, modern farmers spray deadly poisons on their fields. These massacre Nature's jeev srushti – the unpretentious but tireless little workers that maintain the ventilated quality of the soil, and recycle all life-ebbed biomass into nourishment for plants. The noxious chemicals also inevitably poison the water, and Nature's prani srushti, which includes humans.

The Root of Unsustainablity

Sustainability is a modern concern, scarcely talked of at the time you championed the 'green revolution'. Can you deny that for more than forty centuries, our ancestors farmed the organic way – without any marked decline in soil fertility, as in the past four or five decades? Is it not a stark fact that the chemical-intensive and irrigation-intensive way of growing monoculture cash crops has been primarily responsible for spreading ecological devastation far and wide in this country? – Within the lifetime of a single generation!

Engineered Erosion of Crop Diversity, Scarcity of Organic Matter, and Soil Degradation

This country boasted an immense diversity of crops, adapted over millennia to local conditions and needs. Our numerous tall, indigenous varieties of grain provided more biomass, shaded the soil from the sun, and protected against its erosion under heavy monsoon rains. But in the guise of increasing crop production, exotic dwarf varieties were introduced and promoted through your efforts. This led to more vigorous growth of weeds, which were now able to compete successfully with the new stunted crops for sunlight. The farmer had to spend more labour and money in weeding, or spraying herbicides.

The straw growth with the dwarf grain crops fell drastically to one-third of that with most native species! In Punjab and Haryana, even this was burned, as it was said to harbour 'pathogens'. (It was too toxic to feed farm cattle that were progressively displaced by tractors.) Consequently, much less organic matter was locally available to recycle the fertility of the soil, leading to an artificial need for externally procured inputs. Inevitably, the farmers resorted to use more chemicals, and relentlessly, soil degradation and erosion set in.

Engineered Pestilence

The exotic varieties, grown with chemical 'fertiliser', were more susceptible to 'pests and diseases', leading to yet more poison (insecticides, etc.) being poured. But the attacked insect species developed resistance and reproduced prolifically. Their predators – spiders, frogs, etc. – that fed on these insects and 'biologically controlled' their population, were exterminated. So were many beneficial species like the earthworms and bees.

Agribusiness and technocrats recommended stronger doses, and newer, more toxic (and more expensive) chemicals. But the problems of 'pests' and 'diseases' only worsened. The spiral of ecological, financial and human costs mounted!

The 'Development' of Water Scarcity and Dead, Salty Soils

With the use of synthetic fertilizer and increased cash cropping, irrigation needs rose enormously. In 1952, the Bhakra dam was built in Punjab, a water-rich state fed by 5 Himalayan rivers. Several thousand more big and medium dams followed all over the country, culminating in the massive Sardar Sarovar. And now, our government is toying with a grandiose, Rs 560,000 crore proposal to divert and 'inter-link' the flow of our rivers. This is sheer 'Tughlaqian' megalomania, without a thought for future generations!

India, next to South America, receives the highest rainfall in the world. The annual average is almost 4 feet. Where thick vegetation covers the ground, and the soil is alive and porous, at least half of this rain is soaked and stored in the soil and sub-soil strata. A good amount then percolates deeper to recharge aquifers, or 'groundwater tables'.

The living soil and its underlying aquifers thus serve as gigantic, ready-made reservoirs gifted free by Nature. Particularly efficient in soaking rain are the lands under forests and trees. And so, half a century ago, most parts of India had enough fresh water all round the year, long after the rains had stopped and gone. But clear the forests, and the capacity of the earth to soak the rain, drops drastically. Streams and wells run dry. It has happened in too many places already.

While the recharge of groundwater has greatly reduced, its extraction has been mounting. India is presently mining over 20 times more groundwater each day than it did in 1950. Much of this is mindless wastage by a minority. But most of India's people – living on hand-drawn or hand-pumped water in villages, and practising only rain-fed farming – continue to use the same amount of ground water per person, as they did generations ago.

More than 80% of India's water consumption is for irrigation, with the largest share hogged by chemically cultivated cash crops. Maharashtra, for example, has the maximum number of big and medium dams in this country. But sugarcane alone, grown on barely 3-4% of its cultivable land, guzzles about 70% of its irrigation waters!

One acre of chemically grown sugarcane requires as much water as would suffice 25 acres of jowar, bajra or maize. The sugar factories too consume huge quantities. >From cultivation to processing, each kilo of refined sugar needs 2 to 3 tonnes of water. This could be used to grow, by the traditional, organic way, about 150 to 200 kg of nutritious jowar or bajra (native millets).

While rice is suitable for rain-fed farming, its extensive multiple cropping with irrigation in winter and summer as well, is similarly hogging our water resources, and depleting aquifers. As with sugarcane, it is also irreversibly ruining the land through salinisation.

Soil salinisation is the greatest scourge of irrigation-intensive agriculture, as a progressively thicker crust of salts is formed on the land. Many million hectares of cropland have been ruined by it. The most serious problems are caused where water-guzzling crops like sugarcane or basmati rice are grown round the year, abandoning the traditional mixed-cropping and rotation systems of the past, which required minimal or no watering.

Since at least 60% of the water used for irrigation nowadays in India, is excessive, indeed harmful, the first step that needs to be taken is to control this. Thus, not only will the grave damage caused by too much irrigation stop, but a good deal of the water that is saved can also become available locally for priority areas where acute scarcity is felt.

Conservative Irrigation and Groundwater Recharge at Kalpavruksha

Efficient, organic farming requires very little irrigation – much less than what is commonly used in modern agriculture. The yields of the crops are best when the soil is just damp. Rice is the only exception that grows even where water accumulates, and is thus preferred as a monsoon crop in low-lying areas naturally prone to inundation. Excess irrigation in the case of all other crops expels the air contained in the soil's inter-particulate spaces – vitally needed for root respiration – and prolonged flooding causes root rot.

The irrigation on my farm is a small fraction of that provided in most modern farms today. Moreover, the porous soil under the thick vegetation of the orchard is like a sponge that soaks and percolates to the aquifer, or ground-water table, an enormous quantity of rain each monsoon. The amount of water thus stored in the ground at Kalpavruksha, is far more than the total amount withdrawn from the well for irrigation in the months when there is no rain.

Thus, my farm is a net supplier of water to the eco-system of the region, rather than a net consumer! Clearly, the way to ensure the water security and food security of this nation, is by organically growing mixed, locally suitable crops, plants and trees, following the laws of Nature.

Need for 30% Tree Cover

We should restore at least 30% ground cover of mixed, indigenous trees and forests within the next decade or two. This is the core task of ecological water harvesting – the key to restoring the natural abundance of groundwater. Outstanding benefits can be achieved within a decade at comparatively little cost. We sadly fail to realise that the potential for natural water storage in the ground is many times greater than the combined capacity of all the major and medium irrigation projects in India – complete, incomplete, or still on paper! Such decentralized underground storage is more efficient, as it is protected from the high evaporation of surface storage. The planting of trees will also make available a variety of useful produce to enhance the well being of a larger number of people.

Even barren wastelands can be restored to health in less than a decade. By inter-planting short life-span, medium life-span, and long life-span crops and trees, it is possible to have planned continuity of food yield to sustain a farmer through the transition period till the long-life fruit trees mature and yield. The higher availability of biomass and complete ground cover round the year will also hasten the regeneration of soil fertility.

Production, Poverty & Population

After the British left, Indian agriculture was recovering steadily. There was no scarcity of diverse nourishment in the countryside, where 75% of India lived. The actual reason for pushing the 'Green Revolution' was the much narrower goal of increasing marketable surplus of a few relatively less perishable cereals to fuel the urban-industrial expansion favoured by the government.

The new, parasitical way of farming you vigorously promoted, benefited only the industrialists, traders and the powers-that-be. The farmers' costs rose massively and margins dipped. Combined with the eroding natural fertility of their land, they were left with little in their hands, if not mounting debts and dead soils. Many gave up farming. Many more want to do so, squeezed by the ever-rising costs. This is nothing less than tragic, since Nature has generously gifted us with all that is needed for organic farming – which also produces wholesome, rather than poisoned food!

Restoring the natural health of Indian agriculture is the path to solve the inter-related problems of poverty, unemployment and rising population. The maximum number of people can become self-reliant through farming only if the necessary inputs are a bare minimum. Thus, farming should require a minimum of financial capital and purchased inputs, minimum farming equipment (plough, tools, etc.), minimum necessary labour, and minimum external technology. Then, agricultural production will increase, without costs increasing. Poverty will decline, and the rise in population will be spontaneously checked.

Self-reliant farming – with minimal or zero external inputs – was the way we actually farmed, very successfully, in the past. Barring periods of war and excessive colonial oppression, our farmers were largely self-sufficient, and even produced surpluses, though generally smaller quantities of many more items. These, particularly perishables, were tougher to supply urban markets. And so the nation's farmers were steered to grow chemically cultivated monocultures of a few cash crops like wheat, rice, or sugar, rather than their traditional polycultures that needed no purchased inputs. [See Annexure 5 on an old, six-crop integral system (of cotton, 2 millets and 3 edible pulse legumes) which successfully provided farmers in low-rainfall regions with more diversity and continuity of yield round the year – without any irrigation or external inputs.]

In Conclusion:

I hope you have the integrity to support widespread change to mixed organic farming, tree planting and forest regeneration (with local resources and rights) – that India greatly needs. I would be glad to answer any query or doubt posed to me, preferably in writing. I also welcome you to visit my farm with reasonable prior notice. Since many years, I have extended an open invitation to any one interested in natural/organic farming to visit Kalpavruksha, on any Saturday afternoon between 2.00 and 4.00 pm., which continues till date.

I may finally add that this letter has been transcribed in English by Bharat Mansata, based on discussions with me in Gujarati. (The annexures hereto are excerpted from his forthcoming book, 'The Vision of Natural Farming,' Earthcare Books, which draws largely on my experience.)

Whether or not you agree with my views, I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Bhaskar H. Save

Copy to: (i) The Prime Minister of India, (ii) The Union Minister for Agriculture, (iii) The Chairperson, National Advisory Council, (iv) The media.

Annexures:

1. Comparison of Chemical Farming and Organic Farming
2. An Introduction to Kalpavruksha (my farm)
3. Recorded Opinions of Visitors
4. A Biographical Note

5) Note on a Traditional Six-Crop, Integral System – in a low rainfall zone, providing diverse yield round the year without any irrigation or external input.

6. Content Overview and More Excerpts from 'The Vision of Natural Farming'

Annexure 1: Comparison of Chemical Farming & Organic Farming:

-- by Bhaskar Save, transcribed from Gujarati to English by Bharat Mansata

1. Chemical farming fragments the web of life; organic farming nurtures its wholeness
2. Chemical farming depends on fossil oil; organic farming on living soil.
3. Chemical farmers see their land as a dead medium; organic farmers know theirs is teeming with life.
4. Chemical farming pollutes the air, water and soil; organic farming purifies and renews them.
5. Chemical farming uses large quantities of water and depletes aquifers; organic farming requires much less irrigation, and recharges groundwater.
6. Chemical farming is mono-cultural and destroys diversity; organic farming is poly-cultural and nurtures diversity.
7. Chemical farming produces poisoned food; organic farming yields nourishing food.
8. Chemical farming has a short history and threatens a dim future; organic farming has a long history and promises a bright future.
9. Chemical farming is an alien, imported technology; organic farming has evolved indigenously.
10. Chemical farming is propagated through schooled, institutional misinformation; organic farming learns from Nature and farmers' experience.
11. Chemical farming benefits traders and industrialists; organic farming benefits the farmer, the environment and society as a whole.
12. Chemical farming robs the self-reliance and self-respect of farmers and villages; organic farming restores and strengthens it.
13. Chemical farming leads to bankruptcy and misery; organic farming liberates from debt and woe.
14. Chemical farming is violent and entropic; organic farming is non-violent and synergistic.
15. Chemical farming is a hollow 'green revolution'; organic farming is the true green revolution.
16. Chemical farming is crudely materialistic, with no ideological mooring; organic farming is rooted in spirituality and abiding truth.
17. Chemical farming is suicidal, moving from life to death; organic farming is the road to regeneration.
18. Chemical farming is the vehicle of commerce and oppression; organic farming is the path of culture and co-evolution.

[Note: Annexures 2 to 6 are being sent separately to avoid overloading.]

Heartbreaking as they are, suicides - over 90 last month - are only a symptom of the larger and deep agrarian crisis, reminds the award-winning journalist, touching on the role played by our policy-makers and politicians - from Montek Singh Ahluwalia to Sharad Pawar and Vilasrao Deshmukh, among many others.

SMRUTI KOPPIKAR interviews P. Sainath

Farmers’ suicides in remote parts of the country have a way of appearing in and disappearing from our national media and national consciousness. With suicides, mainly by cotton farmers in Maharashtra’s Vidarbha region, hitting an all-time high of over 710 since June last year, the political establishment was forced to take some note. The Prime Minister himself called a meeting in June and asked to visit the six affected districts of Vidarbha. He traveled there on June 30 and July 1 when the suicide tally read 574; since his visit and announcement of a Rs 3750 crore relief package, over 90 suicides have been reported in a single month.

As cold statistics keep piling up – Vidarbha follows a pattern seen in Andhra Pradhesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab – and the national media chooses an occasional fleeting moment to throw its spotlight on the crisis, there is one man who has been consistently highlighting the heart-breaking grimness of the issues involved: award-winning journalist-author P. Sainath who has been tracking "the suicide story" for over six years now. Sainath, who works as Rural Affairs Editor of The Hindu is based in Mumbai but has reported on rural distress and agrarian crisis since 1993-94 in various publications. He has traveled thousands of kilometers across states for research and reporting on these issues and spent considerable time in the districts of Anantapur, Mahbubnagar, Nalgonda, Medak, Nizamabad, Adilabad, Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh; mainly Wayanad district in Kerala; Yavatmal, Amravati, Akola, Buldhana, Wardha in Maharashtra; as also parts of western Orissa and Rajasthan.

For his work on rural distress including farmers’ suicides, Sainath has received highly prestigious national and international awards including the United Nations FAO Boerma Prize and the Harry Chapin award earlier this year. Not surprisingly, the award money has been ploughed back in various ways to alleviate some part of the suffering of the scores of distressed families he has written about; it’s a little-known facet of his work. "The level of distress in rural households is nearly the same everywhere," he says, "the only difference between a suicide and non-suicide household is the loss of the breadwinner. We are not even beginning to address the distress." No wonder then that, given his research and datasheets of the last many years, the Prime Minister asked for an exclusive one-on-one briefing in June 22nd evening at the PM’s Race Course Road residence, where his Vidarbha visit took shape. Sainath was realistic enough to know that the relief package announced on July 1 would not make a major difference to the lives or futures of the indebted farmers, but even he is now distressed by the unstoppable tally of suicides.

Here, Sainath talks to Smruti Koppikar, Outlook Bureau Chief in Mumbai, on a gamut of issues from suicides to agrarian crisis and gradual corporatisation of Indian agriculture.

Smruti Kopikar: It’s been over a month since the PM visited Vidarbha. This period saw an unprecedented level of farmers’ suicides: nearly 90 in July alone. Obviously, the PM’s relief package did not mean much. What is your interpretation of the spate of suicides?

P. Sainath: Whatever the rhetoric at the top, nothing has really changed on the ground. To begin with, by the time the PM came, the sowing season had ended and there was an absolute lack of credit. It’s one thing for the farmer if he has sown but it turns out to be a bad crop and so on, but to not sow at all means an abject and utter sense of failure and defeat for him. This year many farmers just couldn’t sow; they were indebted many times over. Then, there’s the whole sense of being let down because there was such a huge expectancy build-up to the visit.

Farmers really believed that the PM would do for them what their own chief minister and (union) agriculture minister have not done in the last few years, but there was little to cheer in the PM’s package. Forget the package, no one can tell what happened to the Rs 50 lakh that the PM left behind for each of the six districts; at least that could have been put to immediate use but clearly wasn’t. We can only hope that the numbers will now taper off.

The agriculture ministry seems to have played a significant role in the non-implementation of the PM package, isn’t it? That the minister allowed the crisis to reach such proportions is itself an indictment but his role in the last month has been less than exemplary, would you say?

Mr Sharad Pawar, it seems, is the Board of Cricket Control in India (BCCI) chief first and union agriculture minister later. At least that’s what a dinner invitation to honour him recently in Chennai wanted us to believe. He apparently had no objection to being introduced in this manner, so the BCCI chief is clearly the more ascendant part of his function. In any case, cricket is more profitable than subsistence level agriculture. But, there are other ways in which he is undermining the debate altogether. A cabinet colleague of his mentioned sometime back that there were decisions that could not be taken because the agriculture minister was not present. Mr Pawar has missed cabinet meetings on agricultural issues at a time when farm sector crisis was that big but he did make the time to attend meetings on cricket at Doha and Qatar and elsewhere.

Beyond all this, what’s disturbing is the insidious ways in which his "ministry" - who in the ministry is what I would like to know - is consistently undermining the recommendations of the National Commission on Farmers (NCF) and the political games he’s playing in Vidarbha. For example, the NCF suggested long back that import duty on cotton should be raised. It wouldn’t -- or shouldn’t -- cost the government anything, yet the agriculture minister is unwilling to increase it to any level from the current 10 per cent. He seems loathe to bring in a Price Stabilisation Fund for cotton, the way we have for oil, that was also suggested by the NCF. And, it’s open knowledge that he opposed tooth-and-nail the idea of a loan waiver for indebted cotton farmers though he never opposes subsidies for sugarcane farmers and now for wine growers. What’s mischievous is that his "ministry" issues statements to certain publications on how "unpracticable" NCF recommendations are, trying to put a question mark on NCF’s credibility. Who in the ministry is saying this, he himself? Please explain to us why the recommendations are "unpracticable".

You have toured Vidarbha extensively in the last two years. Before that, you wrote about farmers’ suicides in Andhra Pradesh, in Kerala. What’s it that’s gone so horribly wrong in Vidarbha that the Maharashtra government hasn’t been able to address when you compare this region to other suicide-affected regions?

It’s a very frightening situation. Vidarbha is defying the trend that we have seen in the last few years when there were spurts of suicides in certain seasons. You could clearly see the spikes in Feb-March, then April-May when farmers go to purchase inputs for the sowing season ahead. Monsoons have always been bad for suicides but this year’s Vidarbha is the worst-ever. The spraying season is also bad because that’s when the burdened indebted farmer also has a can of pesticide in his hands…years of frustration and humiliation could just end in a moment. So many deaths have happened in the fields like this.

At the government level, I must say the Vilasrao Deshmukh government has been totally pathetic.

Chief minister Deshmukh and union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar who is from the state had not even visited a single suicide-affected family or village till they were forced to accompany the PM in late June. That itself shows how serious the state government and state leaders perceived the situation to be, and it wasn’t as if there were no reports. The media was writing about it, local politicians were bringing it up, sections of the bureaucracy knew what was happening. There was simply no response. Rather, the response was contrary to what it should have been.

Take the minimum support price (MSP). This Congress-NCP came to power in October 2004 on the promise that it would restore the MSP to Rs 2700 per quintal, that’s what they said when Madam Gandhi canvassed there for votes. Then, within a year, the government drops the MSP to Rs 1700 per quintal. Just restoring it to the pre-2005 level would have saved lives this year. Then, they withdrew the advance bonus of Rs 500 per quintal which would have cost the government Rs 1100 crore a year. It’s purely ideological decision but the farmers are paying with their lives for it. After all this, the chief minister keeps saying suicides have nothing to do with prices.

The state government has been in the denial mode.

Of course. The first instance was in the way they kept fudging suicide figures. Initially, government officials told the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) that only 141 farmers had committed suicide between 2001 and 2004, then they told the Bombay High Court that 524 had committed suicide in the four-year period, in October 2005 they told the NCF that the figure was 309 only for Yavatmal. Two months later, the government told the state assembly that 1041 farmer suicides had been recorded in the period. Then, of course, the PM was given a figure of 1600 plus in six districts, of which 574 had been recorded in the last one year, prior to his visit. So, there’s a basic attitude of denial.

That’s topped by a laggard and lackadaisical approach to the situation. I will give you just two instances. When the NCF was on its mission to Vidarbha, not a single MLA from the region came to meet the team or talk or be present anywhere, which was in complete contrast to Kerala when three MLAs from Wayanad region talked to the NCF team. Then, of course, Mr Pawar visited Vidarbha two days before the NCF came there but he had apparently come there to canvas votes from the Vidarbha Cricket Association for BCCI election. He even addressed a press conference but he had no time for dying farmers.

Mr Vasant Purke is the guardian minister, he never visited a single affected village. When he eventually did, it was to a village that he didn’t even know existed, people there gave him a piece of their mind. All that the government has done is to stonewall and remain silent. When the numbers piled up and the crisis became too big to keep quiet, they started instituting teams and commissions of inquiry. Each one came up with similar findings but they still instituted the next, hoping that that report will be in their favour. There’s also a collapse of sorts of the local political class.

So Mr Vilasrao Deshmukh is twiddling his thumbs but he and the union agriculture minister don’t seem to be on the same page on this issue. Also the one-upmanship between Congress and NCP is playing itself out here too. Is this your assessment as well?

There’s a larger political game at play. Mr Sharad Pawar wants to be seen as the benefactor of whatever little happens in the farmers’ favour there, so he pouted and played hard to get when the PM’s visit was announced. He wanted the relief package to be seen as his doing for the Maharashtra farmer.

And the PM was supposed to be a postman delivering it there! Unfortunately for him, it didn’t work out that way. If the state government does anything for the farmers, it will be seen as the Congress’ gesture which does not bode well for NCP prospects there in the next election. So, there is indeed a political game being played out there but that’s not what we need to spotlight; doing that would take away from the focus on the crisis. There are other aspects of politics too - local leaders, MLAs and others are becoming agents of seed companies, they are the new moneylenders, and so on. Politicians are very much a part of the problem.

You have tracked the farmers’ suicides in Andhra Pradesh extensively. Tell us the difference in the way the governments in Hyderabad and Mumbai handled the crisis in the two states.

Oh, there’s a big difference, especially in the last two years. And, they are both Congress party governments, at least Congress-led governments. The crisis there happened or peaked when TDP and Chandrababu Naidu were at the helm. After their 2004 defeat, Naidu, who was hailed as the best reformist chief minister of the country by international lending institutions, told the world that the TDP had failed to make farming community accept the correctness of the reforms but told his party: we lost farmers. If the Congress was back in power, there was a message for it and they seemed to have got at least some things right. Andhra Pradesh is a poorer state than Maharashtra, its Human Development Index is the worst for the four southern states.

In the two years of YSR Reddy’s tenure as chief minister, several pro-active steps have been taken. First, they paid compensation to almost 3000 farmers which was a big step because this was an acknowledgement of the crisis at a time when the Naidu government was not even willing to say so. The actual figures of those who should have got compensation were higher, but at least these suicides were not disputed. Then, they set up a helpline for farmers and saw to it that calls were taken seriously. Then, they issued ten lakh new Below Poverty Line (BPL) cards and restored the ones that the Naidu government had cancelled. This meant that indebted and impoverished families had some access to foodgrain.

What worked also was that AP agriculture minister has been pro-active on the issues that were in his domain. He was the man who took the multinational seed company Monsanto to court over the exorbitant rates they were charging for seeds, under the guise of technology costs. See what happened. Monsanto dropped its price per packet of Bt cotton seed by half. It was a big relief. The government banned three varieties of seeds. Then, he led raids on moneylenders who were harassing farmers and forced them into an one-time settlement against outstanding loans. There were, and are, issues that are outside the purview of the state government like the import duty and so on but at least, the government was seen to be doing something that touched the farmers’ lives in a real way. It restored the confidence of the peasant community. The first few months of Congress rule may have seen high suicide figures continuing from TDP time, but the numbers tapered off. What’s surprising is that both AP and Maharashtra have Congress-led governments and yet there are such deep differences in their approach.

Over the years, what are your impressions of how the crisis has played out? Are there any trends that are common, any lessons that can be learned and transferred?

There are some trends and patterns that are common.

One is that you learn to anticipate the season of suicides and hope that there are none. The sowing season is one when credit becomes unavailable or too expensive to the farmer and he sees no further hope. Then, the harvest season when his produce - the little that has survived drought, pestilence and everything else - gets a low output price which is so low that it often doesn’t even cover the cost. So, what’s left for the farmer and his family? The lender claims the first right on the produce. The state-owned marketing agencies and representatives are not to be seen or pay the farmer very little. So, there are seasons of suicides that people like us hope not to see, but know will come upon us.

There’s another frightening trend in Vidarbha that I also noticed in Kerala - so many farmers who committed suicide were experienced farmers, who had been at it for years together yet saw no light at the end of the tunnel. They were not novices but had at least 15-20 years of experience of withstanding drought, inhospitable conditions. Many of them had a good elementary education, they had passed Class Xth at least. It’s scary when a farmer like this with 20 years of experience behind him says: "I am gone, I can’t do it anymore". It shows how we as a nation treat our farming community.

There’s a pattern in the government’s response too. State governments in each of these states and the central government begin in the denial mode. The union agriculture minister dismisses these suicides as a mere 15 per cent of the one lakh suicides in the country every year. This attitude then inhibits everything else, all other responses. Once the issue becomes too hot to handle, governments get into the dispute mode. They dispute your figures, they institute committees and commissions they hope will give them more good-looking figures but it doesn’t always happen that way. So, they will keep disputing all other sets of figures but never actually giving their set of numbers. Then, there’s a whole Brahminical analysis of election results and suchlike to show that there’s no relation of the crisis to political power.

The most "successful" strategy so far for them has been to treat farmers’ suicides as separate from the larger agrarian crisis, distinct from rural distress. Bad monsoon or drought is a favourite fallback excuse for suicides but we have had ten-twelve good monsoons now, so that falls flat. Once governments acknowledge the crisis, their response is very varied depending on who runs the show, who calls the shots, who is tied in with what interests and so on. Most responses are then ideologically determined - for example, Kerala demanded many concessions and got some because all their crops were linked to global trade, AP does it one way, Punjab yet another (there hasn’t been much media attention on Punjab though the crisis is as big), Maharashtra another way.

Farmers taking their lives, however heart-rending, are the micro stories. The larger issue is why so many thousands of them have been pushed to such an extreme step, isn’t it?

Every suicide is heart-breaking. The delayed and little media attention is focused on the suicides, so are many responses. Suicides have to be recorded but they are not the crises. Suicides are a symptom of the larger and deep agrarian crisis that we as a nation find ourselves in. Governments are still quibbling over the reasons for suicides and setting up committees to find out those reasons but truth is that we all know the reasons. Vidarbha is not unique, nor is any other region. They are part of the larger crisis. And the crisis is there to see, it is affecting every farm household. The only difference between a suicide and non-suicide household is the loss of the breadwinner but they are faced with the same set of issues.

Every suicide has a multiplicity of causes, the farmer has been harassed for years in a row, finds himself in a debt trap where he has to take private credit to pay off earlier credit, he is not eligible for fresh bank credit because banks term him a defaulter, he owes money to the moneylender, the seed agent, the pesticide agent, a string of local sahukars from whom he has taken money for medical emergencies or weddings and so on. In such circumstances, any trigger is enough to take the extreme last step: it could a be fight with his wife, or it could be another insult from the moneylender or someone forcibly taking over his land/house for defaulting. What’s completely appalling is that local officials record various silly reasons for suicides and the family doesn’t become eligible for state compensation, if and when it’s given. In Vidarbha, officials who had made excuses for not giving compensation last many months were running around on the eve of PM’s visit to hand over the cheques, without any verification.

There simply hasn’t been enough debate about or focus on the larger agrarian crisis. Is it that governments don’t get the picture? Why do governments seems to blindfold themselves?

The way I see it, there are primarily ideological issues involved here. I believe that eventually, in one way or the other, the outstanding debt will have to be waived off. There’s no hope in hell that it can ever be recovered. Farmers are just not able to pay off, what can they do? In the current agrarian set-up, at least for cotton, input prices are high and output is priced lower, government support price is pulled off or lowered, foreign cotton is cheaper because of low import duties. How in the world can this system be favourable or beneficial to the farmers? Is it so difficult for those in power to understand this? No, but there are ideological issues involved here. For a certain type of politician and bureaucrat, loan waiver is a dirty word and they will not even consider it. The same set will happily write off lakhs of crores of industrial loans as bad debt or non-performing assets (NPAs).

There are other issues as well. Look at the gigantic cuts in our Rural Development expenditure. In 1989, it was 14.5 per cent of our GDP. It had sunk to 5.9 per cent of the GDP by 2004. In real terms, it represents a fall of about Rs 30,000 crore a year in rural expenditure, economist Utsa Patnaik has worked out. The income loss in villages is between Rs 1,20,000 to 1,50,000 crore over these years. We may as well have sent the Air Force to bomb the countryside! It’s like taking Rs 2000 crore out of Mumbai and wondering where we have gone wrong.

Then, there’s the so-called market-based pricing. We all know how Monsanto made easy money on royalty and technology costs while the Indian farmer was killing himself over the high seed prices. The local seeds were Rs 7 a kilo in 1991, the commercial varieties cost Rs 80-100 per kilo even ten years back. Monsanto seeds cost nearly Rs 3800 a kilo, now they cost about half. Similarly, all input prices were allowed to explode…a DAP bag cost Rs 100 in 1991, it now costs between Rs 480 and Rs 500. Water and electricity costs exploded. Farmers were told that Bt seed would not attract bollworm and they would save on pesticides, but in reality they had to buy pesticides even for the Bt seed and these pesticides cost more than the usual varieties they had used. Then, governments go around depressing output prices and withdrawing advance bonus. How can a farmer sustain in such an unproductive pattern, year after year?

There’s the issue of farm credit as well. Either it’s not available or it’s very expensive.

This is possibly the worst part of the link that leads to suicides.

In the era of reforms, bank credit to agriculture has declined. The number of banks in rural areas has declined sharply, both in absolute terms and percentage terms. The NSS 59th round showed the pattern of indebtedness amongst rural households. It more than doubled between 1991-92 and 2003-03, from 21 per cent to 48 per cent. It has since only become worse. If you take a map of rural indebtedness and a map of farmer suicides, they fit like a T. That should tell the entire story, to whoever wants to listen. Where farmers have high debt but are supported by a relatively better welfare/support network like in Tamilnadu, the incidence of suicides is lower. TN has also given a total loan waiver. I don’t understand what’s stopping Maharashtra from doing it.

Then, there’s the new emerging sahukar in these villages. He used to be the agricultural extension officer, now he’s the technical expert, he’s a lender, also doubles up as agent for seed companies like Monsanto or pesticide companies. He makes money in three ways - he sells seeds and pesticides at higher rates, he charges an usurious two and a half per cent per hundred or 30 per cent per annum on credit extended to the farmer, he also claims the first right on produce and gives low prices to the farmer but sells at higher prices in the market. Yavatmal district had about 100 seeds shops, now there are 1200 of them. Agricultural extension concept is dead, the entire machinery had just broken down. To top it all, the output prices have simply collapsed for farmers though agents are making money. Farming has become unviable and that’s the larger issue. Successive government policies have made it so. Today, in Warangal in AP, a farmer with eight acres of paddy and family of five would be officially under the BPL. That’s how bad we have made it for them.

Then, there’s the international institutional arrangements our governments have entered into. International prices are volatile. While the US protects its 20,000 cotton growers (growers because they are not just farmers, they are also large companies) with subsidies of $4.7 billion in 2004-05, our governments take away support prices and bonuses. The value of crop that year in the US was $3.9 billion. The subsidies meant cheaper cotton in the international market; it destroyed cotton farmers from Vidarbha to West Africa. The subsidy for a European cow is now more than that given to an Indian farmer! And, let’s not forget that the Indian farmer is operating in a rigged market, rigged by the middlemen here and by the large corporates in the world. As many as 85 per cent of our farmers are now net purchasers. Government policies are clearly taking us toward corporatisation of agriculture, taking farming out of the farmers’ hands and handing it over to national or preferably international corporates.

Obviously those who are re-defining our agriculture know what they are doing and where it will lead us as a nation. Yet, they are doing it. It’s not that farmers or people in that arena are taking everything lying down, we see a lot of anger. Why isn’t that forcing a re-think by governments?

Yes, there’s a lot of anger and there’s activism too. We have a situation where people are telling the government, or anyone in authority willing to listen, what’s going wrong. Some are resorting to extreme measures - like when the Shiv Sena MLA Gulabrao Gawande set himself on fire in the well of the Maharashtra state legislature last December, or now when vigilante justice is taking root in some villages where angry farmers have killed moneylenders or activists have forcibly taken back land from lenders. So, the writing is clearly on the wall. Those who should read it are busy doing other things, it seems.

Look at rural employment data, it tells the same story.

The growth in rural employment in agriculture in late 90s is the lowest-ever - 0.67 per cent. Employment in non-farm sector has also stagnated. The National Rural Employment Guarantee (NREG) was an effort but the government isn’t putting enough money into it. So far, I believe 26.6 million have applied for work - what does that say? In AP, 27 lakh have applied, in Maharashtra eight lakh have done so in the first week alone. And, there are farmers in this list with six acres of land to their name! NREG is supposed to give Rs 60 a day; moong dal costs Rs 62 a kilo in the open market. And, then the growth rate of food production and output is less now than the growth rate of population. We are staring at food grain imports. Obviously, there will be migration to the cities where these people are seen as outsiders or a problem. We are witnessing the biggest displacement in our history - not from dams or mega-projects but through government policies.

That’s the question - those who are doing it must know what they are doing, isn’t it? How do you explain this?

The levers of powers are basically in the hands of those who are taking instructions from multi-lateral funding agencies like the World Bank and IMF, or their thinking is in perfect harmony with the philosophy of these institutions. Montek Singh Ahluwalia is an example of this. This also partly explains the regressive legislation that Maharashtra brought in on water use last year. Our policies now are designed to transfer wealth to the rich.

Unfortunately, or fortunately for us, those who work out these policies do not have to go to the people, do not have to ask for votes every five years. It was not Ahluwalia but Sonia Gandhi who went to the people in 2004, she had to win, Congress had to be elected. When this hits home, there will be some change and some re-think on policies, and some lives saved. The way I see it, the Congress party has serious problems with the government on this front, but the government looks at the party as if it were a bother. Somewhere it has to change. The PM possibly sent out the strongest message in Vidarbha when he told the officials making the presentation: "Don’t go by GRs and statistics. This is about human distress". So, some understanding is there, at least at the Centre. Why the Congress chief minister in Maharashtra does not get the message is a mystery.

Tell us how you first came upon the story of suicides and what it has meant to you as a journalist to live with such realities for six years.

I had been covering rural distress since 1993. In fact, suicides form a small part of the work on rural distress itself. But it so happened that there were a few hundred deaths recorded in Anantapur and Mehboobnagar in AP since 1998. A journalist Narasimha Reddy with Eenadu said that there was something strange happening, that a large number of deaths had happened due to stomach-ache. We were shocked, we read the FIRs, went from village to village. In a government teaching hospital, some 300 were brought in 11 months and a young doctor Rama Devi was maintaining a log of these deaths. Our worst fears were confirmed. Where we believed one farmer had committed suicide, it turned out that five to seven had. Then, the numbers just kept piling up.

Whatever profession you're in affects you depending on the way you approach it. Why make a production number of it? I have always loved rural reporting and haven’t been bored a minute. In fact, I have been very lucky to have, all along, the freedom to cover these issues. However, the appalling levels of distress I am forced to confront in the past few years has really been devastating. These are human beings, not "stories". Watching the cruelty inflicted by conscious policy is very damaging to each one of us. You know that people are dying who shouldn't have, needn't have. You know that people are being robbed of resources and capabilities to fuel lifestyles of the rich, that livelihoods are being destroyed in countless numbers. Perhaps more than most other things, the sheer cruelty of it is stunning. And the apathy or unwillingness of our own media to even look at it in depth except in spurts, that hurts too. The suicides themselves are very painful and, I think, quite internally destructive to those who must cover them, check them out.