SURE, there has been some reporting of hunger-related deaths in recent years. From Rajasthan and Orissa, for instance. But it has been marginal to the scale – and more importantly to the nature – of the problem. In the 1990s such deaths resurfaced in a big way for the first since independence. But they are not seen as policy-driven. Much more as the result of natural calamity. And of those catch-all cliches ‘official neglect’. Or ‘faulty implementation’.

It has yet to dawn on many that perhaps the largest number of such deaths since 1992 have taken place in the very rich state of Maharashtra. (In Melghat, in Mokhada, Dhule and other places) Not in Bihar or Orissa. Some of these have occurred no further than 90 kilometres from the city of Mumbai where so much wealth is concentrated.

In Rajasthan, adivasi families are 'rotating hunger' as they have been doing for three years or more now. This means each day one family member goes without food - because there is so little at home. The member who does get to eat is the one who goes out looking for work. With work so hard to find, these families are crushed. Unsurprisingly, more and more hunger linked deaths are taking place in the state.

In Andhra Pradesh the previous year, hungry people were forced to buy rice at Rs 6.40 a kilogram. This, in drought-hit regions, while we exported rice at Rs 5.45 a kg. But Chandrababu Naidu remained the media's darling. And that of Bill Gates. Which meant that only a few dedicated reporters in the state tried to tell people about what was happening.

Andhra led the trend in hunger deaths right from the early 1990s. The weavers of Pochampally were among the first to succumb to that trend -and to suicide.

In Orissa, such deaths have occurred often since 1996. People in adivasi pockets of the state say officials are bullying them. There are commissions of inquiry coming by. And they must be told that the deaths had nothing to do with hunger.

Who would have ever have thought to see hunger-related deaths in Tamil Nadu? Yet, at least eight weavers there went that way this year.

The list is long. In state after state, the policies of the 1990s are claiming human lives in large numbers. Most establishment economists do not refer to this at all. The very few who do, have a cute term for it. It's all about ‘managing the problems of transition.’ (Transition to what, we are never told.) These were sad, but not structural. Aberrations, not endemic.

Sure, some of the deaths do get covered. The problem is that the processes leading to them usually don’t. The hunger deaths are only an extreme symptom of what has gone wrong. To disconnect them from the process is to distort the story.

Some – far from all – of the farmers’ suicides have been reported. Again, with a focus on drought and other calamities. The collapse of investment in agriculture is rarely mentioned. The crash in rural employment, the cutting of rural credit, the rise of input prices – these do sometimes pop up. But they are seldom emphasized. Anything that calls into question the nature of ‘the reforms’ is played down.

Some economists are fascinated by the fall in poverty they see. At least one of them has claimed a decline so rapid that we'd best build a museum to house poverty. We've got to preserve that heritage some place before we lose it altogether. Inequality? How is that a problem?

Two years on, the crisis is much worse. The collapse of small farms unfolds with a sickening brutality. Acute distress in rural India stares us in the face. But too many in the elite don’t want to see, let alone understand it. Record piles of food grains – close to 60 million tons – rot in this country. A nation where the largest number of those in hunger and absolute poverty in the world reside. That too, can be explained away by those whose heads are crowded by the principles of their brand of economics. Whose hearts are bereft of any principles of humanity.