Farmer suicides: A tragic issue made into a spectacle

If a farmer hangs himself in his farm where there are no TV cameras, has he killed himself?

Kamalamma-36-holds-on-to-her-husband-s-picture-outside-her-house-dreading-the-day-when-moneylenders-will-inevitably-come-knocking-Prasad-Nichenametla-HT-Photo

If a farmer hangs himself in his farm where there are no TV cameras, has he killed himself?

The cliché, life is stranger than fiction, was never truer than on Wednesday when farmer and father of three, Gajendra Singh climbed on a tree and hanged himself in the middle of a rally organised by the Aam Aadmi Party.

What followed was almost inevitable. From a string of clichés to a strum of excuses and from apologies to accusations, the tragedy descended to farce and what should have been an occasion to discuss rural distress and the reasons why roughly 200,000 farmers have killed themselves over the past 15 years became a sordid blame game in Parliament and outside.

As every political party put its bleeding heart on display, claimed to be ‘for our farmer brothers’ and appealed to rivals to ‘not politicise the issue’, this is what happened.

The AAP blamed the police. The police blamed AAP. BJP blamed AAP and also Congress. Congress blamed AAP, but mainly BJP. A probe was ordered. Press conferences were held. Letters leaked. Conspiracy theories hatched. Police did not help. People at the rally were egging Gajendra Singh on. It was a suicide note. It was just an appeal. It was not his handwriting. He was not poor. By the end of Thursday, it was enough to make you want to switch off your TV.

Lost in this indecent spectacle is the very real plight of farmers across India that has seldom, if ever, merited more than a footnote in the media, in national consciousness and in politics.

If it was hailstorms last year, it’s unseasonal rain this year that has led to crops being damaged across 93.81 lakh hectares of farmland, according to minister of state for agriculture Mohanbhai Kundaria. Between January and March this year, 601 farmers in just one state, Maharashtra have already killed themselves.

Rising seed prices, a shift to more expensive BT seeds that require more pesticide and fertiliser, the financial collapse of cooperative banks, inadequate crop insurance that covers only 19% of farmers, unremunerative crop prices, and small- and medium-sized land holdings have led to a disastrous agrarian crisis.

Nationalised banks give loans only to those farmers who can offer collateral and, with no access to capital, the poorest farmers borrow from relatives and moneylenders at usurious rates or else resort to ‘bonded farming’ where they rent land for Rs 35,000 or more an acre and split the profits from the sale of crops with the land-owner. But when crops fail, the losses are borne solely by the tenant.

When I visited Marathwada last year, I was not surprised to learn that many farmers with small land-holdings would rather work as daily wage earners than gamble with the weather.

This agrarian crisis is not new and nor did it happen overnight. And while it’s easy to blame political parties for their callousness and self-interest, the sad truth is that we as citizens too have become comfortably numb and indifferent to two thirds of our fellow citizens who struggle to survive.

The farmer is the person out there, no longer even the hero of mainstream cinema, remembered because he owns land we want to acquire for our highways and industries not because he struggles to feed himself, and us.

“I hope the collective conscience of all of us will lead to our taking steps which provide farmers with a reasonable income and decent life,” tweeted agricultural scientist MS Swaminathan.

Sometimes it takes a tragedy of epic proportions to jolt us out of our complacency, to unite to fight regardless of ideology or ism. Such a moment occurred in December 2012 with the gang-rape and murder of a young physiotherapy student.

Gajendra’s suicide could have been such a defining moment for our farmers. But that opportunity has already been lost in the din of political one-upmanship, media outrage and public indifference. There are signs that the rains could be deficient this year too, deepening and adding to rural distress. Will we listen? Will we care?

namita.bhandare@gmail.com

Twitter:@namitabhandare The views expressed by the author are personal

Farmer suicides: A tragic issue made into a spectacle

If a farmer hangs himself in his farm where there are no TV cameras, has he killed himself?

If a farmer hangs himself in his farm where there are no TV cameras, has he killed himself?

The cliché, life is stranger than fiction, was never truer than on Wednesday when farmer and father of three, Gajendra Singh climbed on a tree and hanged himself in the middle of a rally organised by the Aam Aadmi Party.

What followed was almost inevitable. From a string of clichés to a strum of excuses and from apologies to accusations, the tragedy descended to farce and what should have been an occasion to discuss rural distress and the reasons why roughly 200,000 farmers have killed themselves over the past 15 years became a sordid blame game in Parliament and outside.

As every political party put its bleeding heart on display, claimed to be ‘for our farmer brothers’ and appealed to rivals to ‘not politicise the issue’, this is what happened. Continue reading “Farmer suicides: A tragic issue made into a spectacle”

In the din of outrage, genuine questions have been lost

Two separate remarks, one by the prime minister and the other by the minister of state for external affairs, seem to have raised the pitch in a polarised environment.

Two separate remarks, one by the prime minister and the other by the minister of state for external affairs, seem to have raised the pitch in a polarised environment.

In a nation of perpetual outrage, the words — ‘five-star activist’ by one and ‘presstitute’ by the other — have erupted in controversy. And the fact that they stem from the top political leadership is cause for concern.

Away from the hurly-burly of the campaign trail where theatrical references to 56-inch chests would go down well with the audience, leadership demands circumspection and a judicious use of words.

Yet, coming within a short span of each other, the words of Narendra Modi and VK Singh have managed to assert a with us/against us narrative that leaves no room for even the hint of dissent — and this cuts both ways as the liberals and loyalists draw lines.

This has worrying ramifications in a raucous democracy where multiple voices and opinions must be heard.
Modi’s cryptic reference cautioning the judiciary against ‘five-star activists’ made at a conference of chief justices and chief ministers has led some commentators to conclude a case of legislative overreach; others believe that it is a call to the judiciary to deliver judgments without fear or favour to prevailing public sentiment.

Given that the BJP is a beneficiary of judicial activism, in at least the 2G and coal scams that occurred during the UPA’s watch, Modi’s advice to the judiciary is perhaps gratuitous.

But it is gratuitous also because the judiciary has gone about its job regardless of whether it is being hailed for striking down Section 66A or pilloried for refusing to decriminalise Section 377. To imply that judges might be ‘fearful’ of public perception is, therefore, inaccurate.

In his 39-page order that ruled in favour of Greenpeace India’s Priya Pillai, Justice Rajiv Shakder pointed out that dissent is the right of every citizen.

The fact that the ministry of home affairs has nevertheless frozen Greenpeace India’s bank accounts can be seen as a challenge to the judiciary. Should judges be fearful of public perception or an increasingly assertive executive?

In contrast, Singh’s use of the word ‘presstitutes’ has no ambiguity and is so reprehensible that even his party has distanced itself from it.

By choosing to use it to describe a critical media, Singh has managed to mitigate the excellent work of his ministry in evacuating citizens from Yemen.

It leaves him open to being branded as an immature hothead, unsuited to diplomacy.

Perhaps Singh was smarting from the insinuation that attending a Pakistan Day function in New Delhi to which separatist leaders from Kashmir had also been invited was ‘anti-national’.

The questioning of the former army chief’s patriotism by the TimesNow channel was certainly out of line. But with ‘presstitutes’ the general has scored a self-goal.

Choosing words that are deliberately provocative has been self-defeating for another reason: In the din of outrage, genuine questions have been lost and an opportunity for debate and introspection is now mired in political opportunism and aggrieved finger-wagging.

For instance, Modi’s address to the judiciary should have led to questions about its role.

Given its increasing powers, why should the judiciary not be open to more public scrutiny? Is every instance of public interest litigation borne out of an innocent conviction of the larger social good? How do we reduce pendency?

These are valid questions and must be asked in a vibrant democracy. Equally germane are questions about the media’s rapidly falling standards. Paid media, the trivialisation of news, a cosy proximity with sources, the failure to self-regulate, media trials, and the lack of accountability are genuine concerns that must be debated if any semblance of public credibility is to be restored.

But to start a debate you need a measure of sobriety, not name-calling. Mature leadership demands the encouragement of conversation, not a chilling effect on speech by using words and language best left to anonymous trolls on social media.

namita.bhandare@gmail.com
Twitter:@namitabhandare The views expressed by the author are personal