Kahn's case runs in two movements. The first is a defence: before anyone kicks the green revolution, notice that one-sixth of humanity went from ship-to-mouth in the 1960s to food secure within a decade even as the population exploded, and that the machinery which did it — high-yielding varieties, fertiliser subsidies, the FCI, minimum support prices, a ration system built before credit cards or digital identity existed — was, for all its absurdity, a Rube Goldberg device that worked. The second is the indictment: those programmes have outlasted the boundary conditions they were designed under, and each now carries a bureaucracy and a constituency that eats off it, which is why the fertiliser subsidy survives every obvious argument for direct transfer, and why part of what Delhi's farmer protests defended was the roughly ₹6,000 crore a year Punjab collects, largely unaccounted, from its mandi system. His prescription is blunt: stop using price to deliver farmer welfare, because that produces Soviet-style decisions like growing subsidised, groundwater-hungry rice a thousand kilometres from Delhi. Cut the farmer a cheque instead — PM-Kisan's ₹6,000 could be ₹60,000, or a ₹1.5 lakh floor under farm incomes, if the other programmes were folded in. On land he is equally contrarian: consolidation matters less than an information layer separating who owns from who tills, since Pakistan's true zamindari estates do not beat India on yields and China's smaller plots do. And on his own trade — three funds and 33-plus companies since 2010 — he insists India must build the informational layer before the robots, because you cannot sell a smallholder half a million dollars of kit.
Worth your time if you are
Agritech founders selling to smallholder farmers
Policy readers arguing about MSP, DBT and the mandis
Investors sizing India's rural economy
City families still holding ancestral farmland