Sir,The interesting editorial on farmers' suicides[1] aptly argues for the immense role of the state to prevent such calamity, rather than by the mental health services. It rightly points to the role of socioeconomic factors particularly acute economic stress (debts). The solutions thus offered are farmland pooling, irrigation management, modern farming education, fair loan facilities and minimum support price, alternative income avenues, and farmer and crop insurance.Besides this, a few important issues also require mention merely for education and importantly for active involvement. First, the National Crime Records Bureau data which is an underestimate considering; (i) suicide generally is underreported in government figures and (ii) landless (tenant) farmers and women farmers (who have high indebtedness and suicide rates) are left out of the definition of “farmers” hence shrinking the rates of farmers' suicide.[2] Second, it is in relation to the diagnosis of the problem. Yes, it is true that indebtedness is a problem, but why do farmers in India suffer such debt need a nuanced look. Although contested, agrarian crisis as a cause refers to the change in farm sector post 1990s when socioeconomic policies in India shifted to an open market system (finance capitalism, trade liberalization) without sufficient rural preparedness (widespread land reform), that resulted in a deflationary impact (slow output growth, deficient demand, and high unemployment).[3] Additional decline of national investment in rural development, agriculture, and irrigation projects has further added to the crisis. At the local and individual farmer level, rising cost on inputs (seeds, electricity, and fertilizers), nonavailability of easy credits, and poor protection against unpredictable outputs have been the proximate causes of farmer distress and suicide. Thus, the larger issues of socioeconomic policies and the historical imbalance in India's social development need a look to find the “root cause.”Hence, the solutions, besides those recommended by the editorial,[1] would look toward stabilizing rural livelihood through macroeconomic policy change (expansionary policies to generate employment and income financed through progressive taxation), community collectivization and pooling of risks, and restrained centralization of (national economic decision-making) power at the hands of trans-national corporations.[3]Therefore, public mental health needs different research methods,[2] and importantly mental health professionals need renewed social epidemiological paradigms[4] to think, argue and lobby at the national level.