A Committee headed by Mr. G.K. Veeresh, former Vice-Chancellor of Karnataka Agricultural University, was appointed to probe the cause of mounting farmers' suicides by the state government of Karnataka. The committee which functioned more like a wing of criminal investigation department concluded that the suicides were on account of “personal and domestic problems rather than crop loss”. And hence the committee recommended no compensation. The formation of committees and the statements of political leaders on suicides have become more cynical. The Congress party in power boasts itself of reduction in number of suicides and is busy investigating ‘eligible’ suicides instead of initiating measures to stop the suicide itself.

The committee observed that the incidence of suicides is high in drought prone North Karnataka districts but failed to probe the actual causes behind the suicide. Rather, it blamed nature for the drought conditions and the farmers for the suicides. But, the subsequent spate of suicides that begun since April 2003, after the submission of the report, disproved the claim of the committee, as it was more concentrated in fairly irrigated areas of southern and central districts. The toll has already crossed 300 (as on October, 2003) and is still going on unabated.

Some of the studies that are quoted here have clearly brought out the role of usurious moneylenders and trading middlemen. It is found that the farmers, especially small and marginal farmers are in the clutches of moneylenders. However, the Veeresh committee states that the moneylenders emerge as main credit providers to the victim’s families mainly because of their preference. It has also complained of cumbersome procedures followed by the formal credit institutions or their process of repayment. But, it has not recommended to get rid of the system of usurious moneylenders and notorious middlemen or to take the institutional credit mechanism to the doorsteps of suffering farmers.

The committee dealt its ‘masterstroke’ by underlining that the agrarian distress prevailing in the state and the suicides do not have any correspondence. The committee’s ‘brilliance’ was revealed in its suggestion for not paying any compensation in order to prevent suicides asserting that it could act as an “encouraging or driving factor for more suicides” and recommended to pay Rs.10,000 only, equating farmers suicides on par with unnatural accidents!

The crisis did not crop up suddenly. It has evolved over a period of time because of the macro level, pro-liberalisation policies of the governments and has intensified now. As a result, farmers' economic problems multiply, so also their social issues that lead to depression. In many cases even alcoholism is an outcome of such depression. Debt trap is one of the basic reasons for such consequences. Farmers do not have a system where they can throw up their hands and declare insolvency and happily sit back. Indebtedness is a matter of personal shame and not a 'business' phenomenon in the case of peasants. We don't hear about suicides of Industrialists if they are indebted. They simply give insolvency, as it is part of the system of protecting them. Poor farmers are denied and discriminated of this protection system. Even the occasional loan waivers help only the rich farmers who have access to the banking system.

The committee has recommended all possible means to get rid of smallholdings up to 5 acres, i.e., by handing over large tracts of lands to the private corporate houses. It has not recommended any public investment on infrastructure, etc., rather recommended private investments as the small farmers, in its opinion, are 'destined' to commit suicide as they lack the capital. A significant aspect of Karnataka land reforms is that it abolished tenancy, at least on paper. Still, illegal tenancy is rampant all over the state. But, the committee has recommended legalisation of tenancy. The committee has echoed the ruling idea of corporatisation and contractorisation as a panacea to arrest the decline in agriculture and sacrificed the interests of small and marginal farmers.

Apart from this, the committee has also recommended creation of 'Farmers Welfare Fund' through equal contribution by farmers and the government, pension and other facilities to ‘Senior Farmers’ who crossed 60 years of age, Farmers State Insurance Scheme along the lines of ESI scheme, etc. They have given some vague and general recommendations like differential pricing of power, area-specific, crop-specific, group-specific credit policy so as to support targeted groups. These recommendations too do not address the real issue of making agriculture remunerative in order to avoid suicides. Instead, they make the individual farmers, not the state, responsible even for minimum social security measures.

Threatened by the recent spate of suicides in 2003, the state government formulated an ordinance prohibiting exorbitant interest rates by moneylenders and allowed only 18 percent in the context of increasing suicides. Unfortunately, the ordinance will have no effect on rural scenario as most of the moneylenders are the very powerful local elite who operate on shadows and never register themselves as a financial institution that can come under the purview of the act.

The government has also announced setting up of a ‘Farmers Welfare Fund’ with an initial corpus amount of Rs.200 crores to meet the social security needs of the farmers, but no details have been worked out yet. One has to wait and see if it is an election gimmick like payment of compensation to the suicide victims.

However, the government has not taken any step to make the agriculture remunerative, to ensure institutional credit mechanism to reach actual tillers, particularly small and marginal peasants.