Minutes after taking oath on Monday as the new Madhya Pradesh chief minister, Kamal Nath sanctioned the waiver of farm loans in the state, as promised in the Congress election manifesto. Ostensibly, this is to relieve economic distress for farmers. But Nath himself was on record last week saying, “[Farmer distress] is why there are so many suicides.” Thus, the lightning waiver.Before anything else, let’s get the facts straight on suicides in India. First, suicide mortality rate is lower among farmers than non-farmers, not higher. In 2011, the latest year for which these data are computed, non-farmers had twice the suicide rate compared with farmers. Two, the non-farmer suicide rate has been rising since 1995. The farmer suicide rate has been generally falling or stagnant in recent years, after peaking during 2002-04.These facts are known and have been reported in the media. (The trends I mention here are from research by Deepankar Basu, Debarshi Das and Kartik Misra published in the Economic and Political Weekly in 2016, ‘Farmer Suicides in India: Levels and Trends Across Major States, 1995-2011’, goo.gl/c2t6tE). But they need repeating, as much of the public discourse on farmer suicide is carried out without acknowledging these numbers.In the current discourse, farmer suicide is treated as an outcome of extreme economic deprivation and its prevalence is considered more widespread than it is. The solutions offered including farm loan waivers and freebies are meant to reduce economic deprivation, which deflects public policy from addressing the critical mental health needs of the affected population. An October 2018 Lancet Commission report on global mental health and sustainable development finds that 80% of Indians with any form of mental disorder in India do not seek any treatment. It is not freebies but psychiatric or psychological treatment that will help them.True, crop failures, constant harassment by money lenders, loss of a job, stock market collapse and similar instances of economic distress create despair, and can drive some people to committing suicide. But so do a large number of other non-economic shocks. The point is, most people have the resilience to withstand these shocks. Those who don’t, need interventions that address their mental health problems.There is little evidence that farm loan waivers, or water, fertiliser and electricity subsidies reduce farmer suicide.So, stop defending economic freebies to farmers on these grounds. There is abundant scientific evidence that access to mental health services can help people with mental health disorders lead healthy lives and timely intervention can prevent suicide.Some have cited surveys of surviving family members as evidence that economic distress has caused farmers to commit suicide. In these surveys, family members mention that the deceased committed suicide because they were stressed about bank loans or experienced crop failures. But note that not everyone with financial debts commits suicide. The more vulnerable have less resilience. In 2011, suicide rate among farmer men was 8 per lakh against the all-India average of 16 per lakh for non-farmer men. Which means most farmers, even those facing extreme economic deprivation, have the mental strength to withstand these shocks. But some with mental health problems may need help.Most societies attach high stigma to mental health problems. In reality, just like diabetes, hypertension or cancer, mental health problems are health conditions.As it is with diabetes, hypertension and cancer, sustained treatment could allow people with mental health disorders to live healthy lives. It is as ridiculous to expect that loan waivers will help someone with a mental health disorder as to expect that they will cure diabetes.Many have commented on the poor quality of suicide data in India. The data get sketchier at the state level. That’s probably one reason why the government has delayed the release of suicide data in recent years. Indeed, poor understanding of these data in the past led some researchers to overstate the suicide death rates of farmers, and under-state those of non-farmers. The current misunderstanding could partly be on account of these earlier reports.How did the earlier studies get it so wrong? The suicide data come from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).Until 2013, NCRB provided data on suicide among self-employed in agriculture and farming. It was not clear if these numbers were only for cultivators or included agriculture labour as well. Previous studies assumed that the data was only for cultivators, and divided it with the population of cultivators to estimate the suicide rate.With the 2014 report, it became clear that NCRB’s definition of self-employed in agriculture and farming included agriculture workers as well. More recentstudies have corrected the rates. Alas, the media has not publicised the new rates as much.Readers interested in understanding the current public discussion on farmer suicide should watch Peepli Live, Anusha Rizvi’s 2010 movie, in which the protagonist, Natha, an alcoholic buffoon, is encouraged by his own brother to commit suicide so that his family could get a loan waiver and financial compensation after his death.The news of Natha’s suicidal ‘intentions’ reach the international and national media in no time. They descend on the village to report on and analyse every aspect of Natha’s life. Natha is overwhelmed. He clearly does not want to die, and has to run away to save his life. No one pays any attention to another villager Hori, who digs dirt for a living, and dies in the pit at the end.Public discourse on farmer suicide continues to be a replay of Peepli Live —focusing on the Nathas, giving them bad incentives; paying little attention to the Horis, who need most help.The writer is professor, social policy, Columbia University , US