The Rise and Fall of Krischat: A Cautionary Tale

by Arnab Paul Choudhary

In a small village surrounded by lush green fields, Bimal, a hardworking farmer, faced the challenges of unpredictable weather, fluctuating markets, and the struggle to make ends meet. Like many small farmers across the country, his livelihood was fragile. When the government announced Krischat, a chatbot built to provide "personalized farming advice," Bimal’s hopes soared. Powered by an alliance of the government, BigTech, NGOs, and the private sector, Krischat promised to revolutionize farming by providing insights tailored to each farmer’s unique needs.

Initially, Krischat lived up to its promises. Bimal received useful advice on pest control, weather predictions, and more. The platform, leveraging data from mobile apps, sensors, and surveys, seemed to offer practical solutions. More farmers joined, drawn by its simplicity and potential for prosperity.

However, as farmers grew more dependent on the platform, Krischat’s recommendations shifted toward expensive seeds and chemical solutions, sidelining sustainable farming practices. Bimal’s costs grew, while his yields declined. Across the nation, farmers faced similar issues, yet the government’s push for Krischat left them with few alternatives. BigTech profited through asymmetric models harvesting farmer data, while the government, with access to the data and indirect incentives, remained a silent spectator.

As traditional farming knowledge faded, replaced by corporate-driven solutions, inequality deepened, and farmers were pushed further into debt or flocked towards cities leaving their soil in hopes of better pastures. Privacy violations became rampant, with personal data used to promote financial products. A generation later, Bimal’s grandchildren inherited a world of dependency. The promise of empowerment had turned into a dystopia, where Krischat stripped farmers of their autonomy, leaving them trapped in a cycle of corporate control and data exploitation.

Yet, amid these challenges, questions began to emerge: What if Krischat had been built with farmers, not just for them? What if the focus had been on privacy, transparency and collaboration, ensuring technology enhanced and complemented, rather than replaced, traditional knowledge? What if profits were to ensure sustainable growth, not exploitation? What if ethical partnerships with the government, companies, and NGOs gave farmers control over their own data, allowing them to make decisions that supported both their livelihoods and the environment? Their future, though uncertain, might still remain in their hands—one where technology amplifies empowerment, and not exploitation.