Farmers in India continue to commit suicide at alarming rates. Although offi cial estimates suggest that fi ve thousand people have taken their lives since 2001 in India’s western and southern regions, unoffi cial estimates suggest that the number may surpass ten thousand (O’Connor, 2007). Once known for its ‘King Cotton’, Vidarbha, in particular, witnessed suicide rates of around two per day in 2006 due to a combination of rising seed and fertilizer costs, the state government’s 32% drop in guaranteed purchase price after harvest, and cheaper American imports after a slash in import duties, all of which forced farmers to accumulate debts from private moneylenders with interest rates as high as 50–60% (Chu, 2006). Because few farmers leave suicide notes as suicide is an illegal act, many suicides often go unreported (Bhatt, 2004). However, little doubt remains when 79% of the farmers have ingested pesticides (Saunders, 2007). In 2005, two districts alone accounted for 600 suicides, mostly of small farmers holding less than ten acres (Kulkarni, 2006). By the end of 2006, 1280 farmers in Vidarbha killed themselves and only 30% of the eligible two million farmers received fi nancial support (The Asian Age, 2007). The Indian government’s response has been to announce the appointment of a research fellow through the Archaeological Survey of India to collect DNA samples from affected families in order to detect a genetic predisposition towards suicide (Arya, 2007). However, psychiatric research itself represents a unique culture with its own biases which must be scrutinized before its application (Bhui & Bhugra, 2001). A recent study on suicide in rural Tamil Nadu suggests that the vast majority of suicide completers succumbed to the exigencies of chronic stress factors rather than preexisting mental illnesses (Prasad et al., 2006). Farmers in India do not express the same stresses as farmers elsewhere, since they must confront additional challenges such as illiteracy, the bondedlabor system, providing for large families, government corruption and rapacious debts from local moneylenders (Venugepal & Jagadisha, 2000). A responsible methodology must ultimately embed the biological within its broader social, cultural, political and economic contexts. Scheper-Hughes and Lock (1987) have advocated examinations into the interconnections of the individual body, the social body and the body politic. Similarly Kleinman et al. (1997) suggest that the societal and the individual remain enmeshed so that a responsible account of pain and suffering requires a wide lens which deconstructs categories normally established as separate discourses such as the ‘medical’, the ‘legal’, the ‘moral’, the ‘religious’, the ‘political’ and the ‘economic’. Collective traumas such as famine and drought require interrogations into existing social, political and economic conditions (Zarowsky & Pedersen, 2000).