Stories from our CoP: Gram Disha Trust

Q. “Arthur C. Clarke’s 3rd law states that ‘any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ How can you ensure these AI solutions remain relatable and practical for farmers rather than feeling like ‘magic’?
Gram Disha Trust also views Clarke’s 2nd law as perspective which states - ‘The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.’ Despite limitations in resources, Gram Disha Trust endeavours to take small but significant steps to innovate and explore domains which are otherwise bereft for smallholders. At Gram Disha Trust, this is always done with a ‘Systems’ approach, where not just the technology but its eventual use case, deployment and even ‘End of Life’ is taken into consideration for a holistic solution.
This is, however, the risk with any advanced technologies be it in farming or any other field. To prevent this in farming, the system must always present outputs in a form that aligns with farmers’ everyday decision-making. Instead of raw data, insights should be communicated as clear actions—such as when to irrigate, when to expect pest outbreaks, agroecological alternatives as the first line of defence etc. If the advice aligns with what farmers already observe, they will see it as an extension of their own knowledge rather than something foreign.
This is where our Maxim (stated earlier) comes in. We apply the rigour of the maxim and ensure that the solutions are real and effective for smallholders. The maxim itself is an evolution from the original  Gandhian Talisman where it is important to consider the last person in society before proposing solutions. Thus, in a sense, our steps may be considered as Digital Swaraj.
Digital literacy and training will also be critical in this process. By helping smallholders understand not just the outcome but also the reasoning behind the recommendation we can build trust among them. When AI recommendations are similar to that of traditional practices, farmers are more likely to embrace them as tools that strengthen their wisdom rather than replace it. This grounding keeps technology practical and relatable.

Q. How do you imagine the future of farming in Himachal Pradesh if affordable, farmer-friendly IoT and Agritech tools rooted in agroecology become widely available? What would that mean for smallholders?
If affordable, farmer-friendly IoT and Agritech tools, rooted in agroecology, become widely available, smallholder farmers could make much more informed decisions regarding their crops. This would reduce uncertainty and risks associated with climate variability, provide early warnings to predict and prevent pest and disease outbreaks, and optimize resources, ultimately increasing profitability and overall crop yield. An important aspect is that there is a basic requirement for underlying Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) on the basis of which all technological solutions are designed. 
This is also important to have state owned/regulated data and infrastructure available in the public domain. This will address any commercial or technological bias that private companies tend to have. This also allows for rights and privacy of the farmers also to be protected. Once such a system is in place numerous innovations are possible going forth. The adoption of these tools would also support agroecological practices, leading to healthier soil, better water conservation, and increased biodiversity on their farms. I imagine a future where technology compliments traditional knowledge to create a more prosperous livelihood for farmers.

Q. You have painted a compelling vision where affordable, agroecology-rooted IoT and AgriTech tools not only improve yields but also safeguard farmer rights through Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). In your opinion, what role should government and public institutions play in ensuring that this DPI is developed and maintained in a way that truly serves smallholders?
Smallholders produce most of the world's food, however, their production system is at risk due to climate change and on the other hand, markets are generally unfair in returns. Thus, they are at double-ended risks. Agri-tech and especially AI is probabilistic at best and unreliable at worst.  Besides, the costs of technology keep going up with time. It is grossly unfair if the unreliability of technology should be at the risk of smallholders. This is also in keeping with the Agri-tech maxim of Gram Disha Trust. However, going forward technology is becoming an irreplaceable aspect of Human Life. In systems design, the commercial and bias aspects of deployment are inherent to technology since it never exists in isolation but wears a thin veneer of finance and corporatization. So, what could be appropriate for smallholders?
Important systems aspects for consideration of technology are - public custodianship for answerability, common interface (else there are too many diverse implementations with no clear comparison on technology for smallholders), success of other DPI in India - are a few considerations. 
Government and public institutions should build and maintain DPI because only they can ensure fairness. If private companies control it fully, there is a risk of high costs and bias. Public systems can keep data and tools open and accessible, and the government provides a safeguard that prioritizes farmers’ rights and long-term sustainability. This is essential for building trust among smallholders.
They also need to support farmers with training and simple services. When institutions focus on both the technology and the people using it, DPI becomes a support system that could be shaped and trusted by farmers.

Q. What message would you share with innovators and policymakers who want to make Agri-tech truly work for smallholders while also advancing the principles of agroecology and sustainability?
My message to innovators and policymakers who want to make Agri-Tech truly work for smallholders is simple: “Always begin with the farmers, understand their grassroots problems”.
I believe that innovators and policymakers should spend time in the field with farmers, this could help understand the challenges first hand. This way it will be much more effective to create tools or policies which will help smallholders. It is also to be kept in mind that the solutions are designed to promote long-term ecological health and sustainability. Policymakers should increase the funding to recognize grassroot problems and also invest in digital literacy for farmers, this could in turn support farmers adopt such technology.

Q. That is a powerful message!"Always begin with farmers, understand their grassroots problems" In your view, what practical steps or platforms can ensure that farmers' voices remain central in shaping both Agri-Tech innovations  and supportive policies?
To understand what farmers think, we need to use clear, organized methods that involve them directly. This could be achieved by involving farmers from the beginning. Platforms like cooperatives, farmer groups, and local forums can give them a place to share their views. Pilot projects must include feedback systems where farmers' suggestions directly guide tool development. At Gram Disha Trust we also have our farm and training center where we undertake trials of production, value chains and technology. In short - all failures of experiments are with Gram Disha Trust and success, if any, are spread out to the smallholders.
Thus this allows us a unique position to conduct field trials for technology before deployment. It also lays, threadbare, the challenges and limitations (cost and complexity) of each such intervention. We take all these results to the public domain to inform the policy and systems design better. In a way, we are the smallholder farmers who first test the technology for viability before promoting it.In addition, platforms that connect policymakers, innovators, and farmers in real time can bridge the gap between design and ground realities. I believe that when farmers see their voices reflected in decisions, they feel ownership of the solutions. This makes technology more practical and closer to real needs.