Death by guidelines By Aparna Shukla and Yoshita Sengupta Photographs by ManoejPaateel
“The day my husband died, he didn’t hadn’t eaten much. He went to the toilet, came back, stood there in front of us and collapsed on to the ground. A green coloured liquid came out of his mouth,” said 40 year-old ParvatiVenkatesh, weeping. In August last year, Parvati’s husband Venkateshdied after drinking a bottle of pesticide. About eight months before killing himself, Venkateshtook up 20 acres of land on lease. On 10 acres he sowed tuar dal and on the other 10 acre, BT Cotton. He bought a Tata Ace for transportation and farm work on loan. An ambitious, confident move. In hindsight, a big gamble. In the largely rain-fed farms of Raichur district, the consistent drought, has led to extensive crop failure. Venkatesh’stuar dal crop failed for the same reason. However, attributing the failure of the BT Cotton crop to the rain deficit would be naïve. The mass failure of the BT Cotton crop across the district is the result of drought, a systemic breakdown, lack of monitoring and an unsustainable open market economy that harvests consumption and greed. “The BT Cotton technology initially gave excellent results to the farmers. It was unthinkable for crops to do so well; for land to yield so much. But the consistent bumper harvest led to a point where farmers expected and wanted at least 10 quintals harvest (from an acre),” said Nirgude, a scientist at the Agricultural University in Raichur.
Harvesting greed For over a decade, the farmers in the region have known no better. They sowed BT Cotton and harvested one bumper crop after another, forgetting the basics of crop rotation and soil conservation. The open market egged them on and kept feeding their greed. The price that the market offered for every quintal of cotton was phenomenally high, as compared to other crops. The private money lenders, in most cases, encouraged the farmers to sow only BT Cotton. Perhaps, also banking on bumper harvests and consequently an assured repayment of the loan and the whopping 18 per cent interest that the farmers have to for the six month loan duration (harvest season). While the open market economy was at play, what neither the farmers nor the government were geared up for was nature hitting back and the now disputed failure of technology. When the single use BT seeds took the market by storm, the natural seeds, which farmers would once protect through the year in their homes for the next harvest, were completely eradicated. They forgot the skills of saving seeds and the market was more than happy to make them dependent. But everyone forgot that the pests can grow resistant, more so when there is a rain deficit and when the farmers are no longer as skilled or thinking or following basic rules. Most BT Cotton crop, across Raichur district, failed due to a mass attack of the Pink Boll Worm, a pest that attacks only cotton crop which BT Cotton is supposed to be resistant towards. Almost every farmer in the region suffered a loss, is in debt and up in arms. For them, the technology failed them, the government and its scientists failed them for failing to monitor and predict the failure of the BT seeds in keeping Pink Ball Worm at bay and to communicate the same to them. “This time, due to less rainfall and the Pink Boll Worm attack, the crops failed. From the farmer’s point of view, the technology has failed. Yes, perhaps he is right. But he is to be blamed too, as he
did not follow the rule book that came along with it. He didn’t. He exploited the landto get more yields,” says Nirgude. The rules, which Nirgude speaks off are guidelines that come with the seeds; Sow BT Cotton crop in only 80 per cent land and have a 20 per cent refuge area where you grow non-BT cotton that the Pink Boll Worm can feed on keeping the area with BT Cotton safe. The second, which most farmers in the region have never followed, is to sow BT Cotton seeds in irrigated farms. The farmers adopted, flourished, abused the land, didn’t follow rules, took up unrealistic loans. However, did the ‘rule book’ truly have a last mile reach? Were the risks and guidelines clearly communicated, explained before dumping the seeds, year after year, into the market? Were they told that the resistance of BT seeds, in so many years, would have likely dropped? “From past experience and experience of BT Cotton crop failing in states like Gujarat, the risks were evident. However, the Raichur Agricultural College doesn’t have the technology or equipment to conducted tests and certify that the resistance of the seeds has fallen. A central government seed testing laboratory needs to come out with that report. I am a scientist. We are an institute. We can give out information to the relevant departments of the government. But, it’s the state’s job to communicate it to each and every farmer,” Nirgude says. Back in the Raichur district’s Agricultural Department, Joint Director of Agriculture M. Kiran Kumar says the department has been reaching out to the farmers through pamphlets and All India Radio. The gap, however, are the vacant positions in the Agriculture Department. Of the 37 positions of ground level agricultural officers in the district, the state has filled up only two or three positions, says an official in the Agricultural Department, on conditions of anonymity. “It’s true. The agricultural department is short staffed since over six years. We do not have enough resources to reach out to each and every farmer,” M. Kiran Kumar admits. “The hiring of these positions happen at a state level,” he adds for good measure. The suicide story The mass failure of BT Cotton Crop led to number of reported farmer suicide cases in Raichur district to go up from two to a whopping 63. “Of the 63 reported cases, the state disbursed a compensation amount of Rs. 5 lakh to families of 27 farmers; 13 cases are still pending because the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)reports are yet to come in and 23 cases have been rejected as they do not meet the criteria for farmer suicide,” explains M. Kiran Kumar. In Karnataka, what’s the criteria for a farmer committing suicide to be called a farmer suicide and thereby for a family to be eligible for a compensation? The first clause demands the farmer’s family to prove that the land utilised was in the name of the farmer, a family member or requires a family to prove that the land was legally leased by the farmer or the family. Most farmers, who take up land on lease for a season, do not have paper work in place. “A landowner, in most cases,wouldn’t choose to sign a lease. The rural markets don’t operate on paper work. Also, there are other policies at play. As per one policy, if a farmer cultivates on an officially leased land for over three years, he can claim ownership of the land. In such a situation, why will someone officially give out land on lease?” said an official from the Agricultural Department of Raichur, on a condition of anonymity.
The second clause for the family to be eligible for compensation demands that the farmer should have taken a loan to begin with and the loan has to be a crop loan. This essentially means that the neither the family of a farmer, who put in all his savings to harvest a crop and committed suicide due to the crop failing, is eligible for a compensation nor the family of a farmer, who took up a personal loan or a loan for a farm vehicle. The third clause states that the loans should be from government or registered banks and licensed and registered cooperativesand financial institutions. However, lack of documentation, complicated procedures and paperwork and sheer desperation for money have for decades pushed the farmers to borrow from private money lenders at criminal interest rates.
With these clauses in place, it’s no surprise that Parvati and her children’s compensation plea has been rejected by the district administration. Parvati, who now works as a field labourer to feed her kids, has absolutely no idea that her husband, even while committing suicide, failed to meet guidelines that would secure his family.