+ Follow
Photo by Rabindra Sundar De: Pexels

There's a rhythm to rural distress in India, quiet at first, then all at once. A farmer borrows ₹50,000 at the start of the cotton season. He needs it for seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Banks have turned him away as he doesn't own the land he farms, or maybe the paperwork is incomplete, or maybe they just don't trust the climate anymore. The moneylender, though, is always available (Always). He agrees to 48% interest.

By the time harvest comes, erratic rainfall has wrecked the crop. What would have yielded ₹2,00,000 now yields nothing. The ₹50,000 debt is still there, but now it has grown to ₹90,000 with interest and penalties. He borrows again for the next season, ₹60,000, another set of compound promises. A cycle where escape becomes impossible.

This is not a story of poor farming decisions or laziness. This is the architecture of a crisis that has claimed over 3,94,000 lives since 1995. In 2023 alone, approximately 10,786 people in India's agricultural sector, farmers and agricultural laborers, ended their lives, roughly one death every hour. Agricultural laborers, those without land, now account for over 55% of these suicides, carrying a burden that's always been invisible until it becomes fatal.

The debt crisis among Indian farmers isn't accidental. It's structural. Approximately 33% of all rural loans come from informal moneylenders, and in some states like Bihar, this figure climbs to 48%. For the poorest farmers, those owning less than 0.01 hectares, informal lending now accounts for 71.8% of their credit sources. Moneylenders charge 36-60% interest, compared to 8-18% from banks. Farmers who died by suicide between them accumulated debt, with 76-82% having borrowed from non-institutional sources at these high rates.

Why do farmers turn to moneylenders when banks exist? Because banks exist in a world of paperwork, collateral requirements, and bureaucratic suspicion that rural India cannot navigate. A tenant farmer cultivating land without formal ownership cannot borrow from a bank, regardless of his years of experience or the quality of his soil. A small farmer without proper documentation becomes invisible to the formal financial system. When your family needs to eat next month and planting season is here, the moneylender who arrives at your door with cash becomes your lifeline, even if it's laced with poison.

It is a debt trap designed perfectly.

Vidarbha and Marathwada, these names have become synonymous with farmer suicide in public consciousness, and for a reason. Approximately 3.4 million cotton farmers occupy Vidarbha, and 95% of them struggle with massive indebtedness. In Marathwada, more than 100 farmers committed suicide in the first half of 2024 alone.

Bt cotton, genetically modified to resist pests, was promoted as the solution to India's agricultural challenges. The government encouraged farmers to adopt it, banks offered credit for the capital-intensive inputs it required, and the narrative was simple: higher yields, lower costs, prosperity. Instead, Bt cotton failed to deliver on its promises. Yields didn't match expectations. Input costs skyrocketed faster than prices that farmers could earn. By 2023, the crisis reversed sharply: after years of relative decline, farmer suicides jumped 75% compared to 2022.

Surveys in Vidarbha between 2023 and 2025 found that 58% of farmers experience mental health distress, 42% report depression, and 35% engage in substance abuse as a coping mechanism. Among those farmers, 25% had diagnosed mental illness at the time of suicide. Yet, rural mental health services are minimal. Counseling carries stigma. The machinery that created the distress has no mechanism to heal it.

The Indian government has implemented several responses, each designed to appear as if something is being done. Each has failed at the task of breaking the debt trap.

  • PM-KISAN provides ₹6,000 per year to farming families. For a farmer in debt to a moneylender for ₹5-10 lakhs at 48% interest, this is a gesture, not a solution.
  • PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) The crop insurance scheme, launched in 2016, was meant to provide a financial buffer against crop failures. In principle, it makes sense. In practice, the implementation has been disastrous. Studies show that 58% of expected insurance claims remain unsettled. Settlement delays routinely stretch to 6-12 months, if they arrive at all. Farmers report a lack of awareness about scheme provisions. Marginal farmers, women farmers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers face disproportionate challenges in accessing coverage. The scheme has increased insurance numbers on paper while failing to actually protect the most vulnerable farmers.

Farm loan waivers, announced repeatedly by state governments, carry the appearance of decisive action. Maharashtra has announced waivers; Karnataka has done the same. Yet audits reveal catastrophic failures. The Comptroller and Auditor General found errors in 22% of cases under the 2008 waiver scheme. Many ineligible farmers received relief while deserving ones were excluded. More damaging still: waivers only benefit farmers indebted to banks. They do nothing for the farmer who borrowed from a moneylender, who now faces harassment rather than forgiveness.

Agricultural laborers have become the fastest-growing category of suicide victims. These are people who don't own land at all. They work at others' fields for daily wages, wages that have stagnated even as food prices and living costs have climbed. They have no collateral, no access to any formal credit, and no government scheme designed for them. Many are forced into debt simply to survive between seasons, borrowing from the same moneylenders at the same rates.

The recent shift from 51% of suicides being cultivators in earlier decades to 56% now being agricultural laborers marks a troubling evolution of the crisis. It suggests that even land ownership, once a protective asset, is no longer sufficient. The entire agricultural system is failing, and the poorest are drowning first.

There are no alternative employment opportunities in rural areas. A farmer cannot simply decide to stop farming; he would have nothing. So he continues, year after year, borrowing to plant, failing to harvest, borrowing more to survive, until the mathematics of despair become unbearable.

The solutions are institutional credit at reasonable rates delivered to every farmer, including tenant farmers and agricultural laborers. What would matter is breaking the cycle through a combination of approaches: investment in irrigation and water management to reduce climate vulnerability; meaningful rural mental health services; land reforms that protect tenant farmers; and agricultural extension that helps farmers make informed decisions.

One suicide every hour. Who fixes the broken system? Effort matters. But whose effort?

.    .    .

References:

Discus