I make Pre-Seed to Series B founders successfully fundraise by helping you build your fundraising operating system. | $350m+ raised with founders. | Follow me for tips on fundraising.

I have spent the last 10 years trying to find the "secret" sauce to making you fundraise for your company.

And you know what?

There's no secret. 

It’s just a matter of having: 

- The right preparation & processes
- A clear and concise narrative & storytelling
- Structured relationships built over a long period 

The real "secret", if there's any at all, is that you need to build a system around your fundraise to make sure you do the proper work.

A system means that allows you to: 

- Efficiently build the right relationships with investors and connectors
- Influence investors that YOU are a good bet
- Take them through your process in an efficient manner 

All the while keeping accountability of you doing the boring but important stuff.

During the $400m+ in venture funding I have been a part of, I was able to meet best-in-class  entrepreneurs. 

Some of these entrepreneurs have gone on to raise $100M+ in fundraising each. ​

All of them possessed operating systems for the fundraises. 

I’ve built such a system for fundraising founders. 

And I can help you build yours. 

But as with all things, getting started, maintaining consistency and keeping accountability is easier said than done.

The founders I have helped with their fundraises have gone on to raise $250M+. 

...And I'm doing all of this with a 100% MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE.

Now, are you serious about building fundraising for your startup? 

Let's make it happen.

(I CAN'T HELP YOU IF YOU HAVE ALREADY STARTED YOUR FUNDRAISE). 

👉🏼 Shoot me a DM, or head over to my featured section & check out our offer.

I'll see you at the top!

Gian Seehra

4 Custom GPTs for fundraising for your startup. 

→ How to get them:

1. Like this post
2. Comment “AI” so I know you're serious

It’s taken me 2 years to structure this the way real fundraises are done. 

To make your fundraise 10x more efficient. 

You’ll get:

1 - GPT that writes your origin story
(Trained on the exact narrative arcs that get investors bought in around your own experiences.)

2 - GPT that builds your pitch deck
(Not just the slides but a story-driven structure that you can use to create an investable deck)

3 - GPT that finds the right investors
(Sourced from hand-built lists, and online so you can find and meet the right investors for you. Bonus: includes warm intro scripts.)

4 - GPT that maps your investor network 
(So you don’t just pitch random people. You build network leverage before you ever ask for a dollar.)

These are for the founders who want to actually prep their fundraise correctly. 

So they don't waste precious time and can actually get the funding they need to successfully build their business.

Raise $1M+ in 90 days with my proven fundraising system. | VC-Backed Founder ($16M) & Tier-1 VC | $400M+ raised with founders. | DM “RAISE” to chat how I can help.

A founder told me to f*ck off when I rejected his Seed startup as a VC. 

(All because I was actually being honest). 

This is what went down. 

I met this founder and we had an intro call. 
At the end of the call I felt it in my gut it was a NO. 

Now here is where I'd do the usual VC thing of: 

"We'll think about it" 
"Sorry we need more traction" 
"You're too early" 

But instead, I decided to be honest. 

I told him that I didn't think he was good enough. 
I tried to be as nice as possible about it. 

(EDIT: I didn't say he 'was not good enough' directly, theres a lot more nuance to what I said, and it was much nicer!)

But he went APESH*T at me. 

Shouting... 
Many swear words... 

Telling me I'm just an idiot. 

He started telling everyone I sucked as a VC. It was going around for a long time. 

I wasn't rude to him at all, just thought I'd be honest. 

Now... 

Here's the problem. 

Every VC who rejects you felt the same way I did about that founder. 

But if they told everyone the truth they'd get a constant line of angry, aggressive founders. 

Just like this founder did to me. 

And I get it... 

And why wouldn't you? 

You are building something every day and know so much about the topic. 

Then: 

• Some random suit spends 30 minutes with you. 
• Doesn't know anything about your industry. 
• Asks stupid questions... 

Only to tell you they think you aren't good enough? 

The optics just don't work. 
So investors resort to fake reasons for why they said no. 

That is the reason you get generic rejections from investors. 

I'm not saying its good. 
But I'm telling you the truth. 

So when you are fundraising make sure investors never feel that. 

Whats the most annoying rejection you got from an investor?

Can I be honest about why those Pre-Seed investors are rejecting you?
 
It’s not traction. No matter how much they say it is.
 
(I know how brutal this sounds, sorry. But it’s the real reason behind the surface reason.)
 
It’s because, in their eyes, you’re not strong enough 𝘺𝘦𝘵 as a founder.
 
Let’s break that down.
 
Over 99% of Pre-Seed investors have funded teams with 𝘯𝘰 traction.  If traction were the gate, most deals wouldn’t exist.
 
Yes, there’s a rare % who do need traction to move. They shouldn't be Pre-Seed investors.

But most of them are just not convinced 𝘆𝗼𝘂 are the one to bet on.
 
Investing into startups is emotions. Gut. "VIBES".

But an investor can't reject you based on "gut feel."
 
So they reach for the fallback excuse: traction.  

Because saying “I didn’t believe in you” sounds cruel.  

Especially when there isn't any evidence at all. 

So its easier to just tell you a white lie. 
 
But the truth is, that same investor who rejected you last week due to you needing "more users/revenue/traction". 

Probably met another founder that same week with 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 traction than you...  

And said yes.  

Because something about 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 felt more inevitable.
 
So please stop getting angry that investors are rejecting you because you need traction. 

And realise its a lie to make it easier on their end.

A founder has NEVER raised a round because of an investor list they got from this platform. 

Please please please stop wasting your time with these. 

You are taking these lists and expecting the world. 

But most of these investors: 

1. Don't invest in your stage or round size
2. Don't invest into your geograp hy
3. Don't invest into your industry
4. Not actively investing

And what makes it even worse... 
You take these lists and think that is "work". 

Patting yourself on the back, telling yourself you've done so much!!

As if you've materially moved your fundraise forward. 

When in fact, you have done NOTHING of benefit. 

The only way to find and meet investor properly is to: 

1. Build an ALIGNED list of investors 
2. Organise your network, then increase it 
3. Map out who are give you warm introductions 
4. Active those introductions at the right time 

THERE IS NO OTHER WAY YOU WILL MEET ENOUGH INVESTORS! 

Period.  

Those 4 steps are the only thing you should be doing everyday if you want to actually fundraise. 

So please stop commenting on someone's AI slop investor lists. 

And do the work that founders who fundraise do. 

What are you finding the hardest when it comes to finding and meeting investors?

The founder of Antrhopic (worth $350BN) setup 22 intros and 21 of them said NO. 

Think about that for a sec... 

A company that is more successful that 99.999% of founders ever will be got rejected by pretty much everyone at the earliest stages.

Yet you think it won't happen to you? 

One of the biggest unlocks for fundraising is understanding that rejection is normal and not necessarily a bad thing. 

You don't need everyone to like you. 

You just need a couple people who believe in your vision.
And you being strongly committed to that vision.

That's how you raise.

But also build something even 1% as successful as Anthropic. 

How do you deal with investor rejections?

Tomorrow, I'm going to jump on with fundraising founders to make sure they ACTUALLY fundraise. 

Wanna join? 

Then comment "WORKSHOP" and I'll send you over the details. 

What's even crazier is its completely free 🤯. 

Come join us! 

P.S. It's getting pretty full already so please sign up quick!

In 2016, I'd failed my 2nd startup due to failing to raise. 
At that point I decided to quit tech all together. 

I then decided to travel to Whistler to become a ski-bum whilst I chose what's next for a "failure like me". 

It wasn't until meeting my future-founders on a gondola did I start my next company. 

Now?

I've raised $16M for two companies I co-founded. 

Helped founders raise over $250M. 

No “manifesting.”
No fake “overnight success.”
Just relentless work.

And the pursuit of finding what makes a fundraise happen. 

People say, “Just wing it”

I call BS.

Everything good thign in life comes when you sit down and actually understand what it takes to do something correctly. 

That preparation is what moves mountains. 

Want to be normal?
Do normal things.

Want to be successful? 
Do what the successful founders do. 

Agree… or is that just insane?

As a VC, the number one question in my head when I opened your deck was simple:

“Do I understand what makes you great?”

If the answer was no, you were finished in under 60 seconds.

Not because I am evil, as much as you want VCs to be. 

In fact, it was because I couldn't build structure in my head that I SHOULD care about. 

So when your deck jumps straight into product on slide 3, it is already dead.

“What if every viewing came with the full picture…”
“What if agents had all of this data…”

Who thef*ck cares? 

I do not know the problem you are really solving.
I do not know why you're better than the rest.
I do not know why you win.

So if you have not made me care before the product, all I see is noise.

And every VC is the same. 

This is a snippet of a roast of a deck I did with a founder. 

Want to get your own deck roasted? 

Comment "ROAST" and I'll send you how to send me your deck to roast myself. 

AND the full video of me roasting this pitch deck.

The biggest problem with pitch decks are that I never know what makes a founder of company great. 

They are generic, one dimensional and lack story. 

So they get put onto the "generic" pile. 

To never be looked at again. 

Below is a snippet of a pitch deck roast I did with a founder last month. 

If you want to get your pitch deck roasted by me, FOR FREE. 

Then comment down below "ROAST" and I'll send you the details. 

P.S. I go very detailed and am VERY direct.

If you uploaded your deck to a VC website and heard nothing back, this is the part no one tells you.

Right now you’re probably telling yourself it’s: 

• The market
• The timing
• That VCs are slow

Maybe they’ll “get to it eventually.” 

That story feels comforting. It’s also wrong.

When you upload a deck into a VC portal, you are not being evaluated neutrally. 

You are walking into the lowest-trust inbox ever. 

When I was a VC, those portals were where the worst decks lived. 

• Wrong stage. 
• Wrong sector. 
• Unfundable ideas. 

Endless nonsense that after opening dozens of those a week, your brain gets trained to expect garbage before you even click.

So when a genuinely good company shows up...
They never got a fair read. 

They inherit the fatigue, the cynicism, and the negative bias created by the last fifty decks.

That’s the part founders don’t want to accept when they upload their deck online. 

You’re not starting from zero.
You’re starting from negative.

And here’s the uncomfortable implication most people avoid saying out loud. 

If your deck is coming through a portal, a VC can immediately tell you don’t have a real network yet.

That signal matters more than your slides.

Uploading a deck to a VC website is not outreach. 

It’s what people do when they don’t know how to access the actual game. 

And once you’ve done it, you’ve already damaged your position without realizing it.

So my blunt advice to you fundraising in 2026.... 

Stop doing it. 

If you’re mid-raise and relying on portals right now, you don’t have a deck problem. 

You have a network and process problem, and pretending otherwise is why you’re stuck.

If this hit a nerve, DM me “NETWORK” and I’ll tell you how to solve this properly.

Most AI tools for fundraising miss the point.

They’re built by people who’ve never actually raised money.

So they focus on surface problems:

• Finding investors
• Writing emails
• Scraping data.

Useful in parts for sure. 
But that's not where fundraises fail. 

The hardest part of fundraising isn’t sourcing names.
Or spamming more investors via cold email. 

It’s building trust in real time.

It’s learning how to: 

1. Lead investor conversations
2. Read subtle signals, and
3. Manage momentum.

And that’s where AI is quietly about to change everything.

For the first time, founders can:

• Practise their pitch against a simulated investor
• Get contextual feedback on tone, pacing and clarity
• Map their structure before a single meeting happens

It’s like running 100 fundraise reps before your first call.

My own AIs are already hitting 80 % of my live sessions. 

Which means founders can now use them between sessions: 

1. To rehearse
2. To refine
3. To rebuild confidence daily

This isn’t about replacing experience.
It’s about compressing it.

The tedious, messy, high-friction parts of fundraising are about to become fast, structured, and learnable.

The human part (trust, emotion, narrative) becomes the main event again.

Would you use this type of AI for your own fundraise if let you use it?

The top 1 hardest part about raising startup funding: 

As a founder you are most likely a domain expert about your industry. 

1. Speaking to customers may seem easy. 
2. Understanding your problem is a given. 
3. Knowing what to do is systemised. 
   
Your founder life is organised and structured to succeed. 

But when it comes to fundraising its the complete opposite. 

And there's a major reason for that. 

You've got to where you are in your founder journey. 
BECAUSE YOU COULD FAIL. 

Those failures made you. 
Sculpted you. 

But with fundraising you don't have that ability. 

You only have one shot at each investor... 
If you fail that shot you fail your raise. 

And because you don't have the ability to fail. 
You have ZERO clue on what you need to do. 

So fundraising feels: 

• Slow 
• Chaotic 
• Unfocused 

You don't have an understand of what matters. 
And what doesn't.

So everything breaks. 

You barely get more than 5-10 investor meetings. 
Those rarely get past the first meetings. 
Your round gets dragged along. 

And suddenly your 6+ months gone... 

Having wasted all this time fundraising with nothing to show for it. 

This is why you need to ACTUALLY understand what you are doing right or wrong in a raise. 

That way you become structured like everything else. 

It's the only way to increase your chances to raise. 

What do you think you're missing in a round?

How many more random people are gonna start posting about how to grow on Linkedin in 2026? 

2025 was crazy how many randos with 2000 followers are doing it. 

For some reason they think they can just copy others and everything will be fine? 

Where's your expertise? 
Where's your love of doing something? 

You just see someone else getting likes so may as well do it as well? 

The scary thing is that I truly think 2026 may just beat it. 

What's your thoughts?

I am a seasoned entrepreneur with over 18 years of experience in business leadership. My academic background includes a degree in Supply Chain Management from Cardiff University, UK, and an MBA focused on Family Managed Business from SP Jain Institute of Management and Research. This combination of education and hands-on experience has equipped me to successfully navigate and grow diverse business environments.

My career began with leading the family business, Alpha Plastomers, where I gained extensive expertise in operations, management, and strategic growth. After significantly expanding the company, I transitioned into the agri-tech sector by founding GROWiT India Pvt. Ltd., with the vision of revolutionizing protective farming in India.

GROWiT was born out of a personal journey in 2017 when my brother Akshay and I ventured into farming with the goal of growing our own food. Discovering the potential of protective farming but finding a lack of quality products in the market, we decided to create our own. The success of our innovations, such as mulch and crop covers, led to the establishment of GROWiT, which now empowers over 500,000 farmers across 10 states with sustainable solutions.

At GROWiT, our mission is to "Empower Farmers for Food Security Towards a Sustainable Future." We are committed to becoming the largest protective farming company globally, providing comprehensive soil-to-harvest solutions that address the evolving challenges of modern agriculture.

I am also passionate about continuous learning, particularly in farming, entrepreneurship, and sustainable practices. This drive has led me to join the Stanford Seed Transformation Program, where I am eager to engage with international faculty and like-minded professionals to transform GROWiT into a global company.

Saurabh Agarwal

Soil never failed Indian farmers.
The system around it did.

For decades, soil testing in India has worked against the farming calendar.

Samples travelled miles.
Reports came months later.

By the time data arrived,
the crop decision was already made.

That gap between soil science and the field
has quietly cost farmers yield, money, and confidence.

With the KrishiDoot Programme, our intent at Growit India has been clear:

Bring certified soil testing directly to the farm.
Deliver insights in hours, not weeks.
Help farmers decide with data, not guesswork.

But this goes beyond faster testing or higher yields.

What matters more is the ecosystem taking shape:

• Local youth trained as Soil Gurus
• Science reaching the last mile, not stopping at labs
• Farmers understanding their soil, not reacting to symptoms
• Rural livelihoods growing alongside precision agriculture

When soil health improves, everything compounds:

Crop quality.
Input efficiency.
Farmer income.
Long-term resilience.

This is not about replacing traditional knowledge.

It’s about strengthening it with clarity, precision, and trust.

Agriculture doesn’t need louder innovation.

It needs relevant innovation built for real fields, real seasons, and real constraints.

Proud of the teams, partners, and every KrishiDoot working on the ground to make science usable where it matters most.

Because the future of farming doesn’t start in reports.

It starts under our feet.

Founder & CEO @ GROWiT - Empowering Farmers for Food Security towards a Sustainable Future. TEDx Speaker

When people ask me what has shaped Growit India’s journey the most, the answer is not funding or products.

It is two things we learned directly from farmers: trust and time.

In the early years, one lesson became very clear. 
Solutions are only as strong as the trust behind them.

Farmers do not adopt what they read about. 
They adopt what they see working in nearby fields.
That understanding shaped how we built the business.

We chose to: 
• Build franchise hubs deep in talukas, not just urban markets 
• Set up demo farms to show results firsthand 
• Listen before selling, always listening first

Growth did not come overnight. 
Real impact never does. 

The lessons learned over the last four plus years have become our strongest foundation.

We also learned that trust travels further than any campaign. 
When farmers see consistent results season after season, they do not just stay. 

They advocate.

Today, the community of farmers, franchise partners, and field teams around Growit reflects that belief.

Because in agriculture, real scale is quiet. It shows up in repeated use, peer recommendations, better outcomes for farmers, and resilience across seasons.

This journey has taught me, and our entire team, that the longest roads often lead to the most meaningful impact.

Here’s to patience, practice, and progress in the fields we serve.

We think farming is simple.
It never was.

Seed. Soil. Water. Harvest.

That’s the story we tell ourselves.

The reality is far more uncomfortable.

Because the biggest cost of modern agriculture doesn’t show up in one season.

It shows up silently.

Soil that looks fine today but loses 20–30% productivity over 3–5 years without a single dramatic failure.

Yields that appear “stable”
but demand 15–25% higher inputs every season just to stay flat.

Farmers pushed to grow more with almost no support to grow better

For decades, agriculture has chased one number: quantity.

- More land.
- More fertiliser.
- More chemicals.
- More water.

Yet returns keep shrinking.

In many regions, fertiliser use has increased 2–3×

while yield growth has crawled in single digits.

That’s not efficiency.

That’s erosion.

What we lost along the way is respect.

- Respect for soil as a living ecosystem, not an extraction surface.
- Respect for data as a decision engine, not a report filed too late.
- Respect for farmers as long-term stewards, not seasonal risk-takers.

When quality is ignored, the bill always arrives later.

As degraded land.
As rising input dependency.
As unstable yields.
As mounting financial stress.

The future of agriculture isn’t about taking more from the land.
It’s about understanding it better.

Nutrient balance over overuse.
Soil biology over symptom treatment.
Science over assumptions.

Sustainability isn’t slower growth.
It’s growth that still exists 10, 20, 30 years from now.

The moment farming becomes science-led, it stops being a gamble.

And real success in agriculture isn’t measured by what we extract in one season but by what the soil can still give a decade later.

When we started Growit India, our mission was simple.

Make every farmer’s effort count.

Over the years of walking fields and speaking with farmers across Rajasthan, Punjab, Maharashtra, and beyond, one pattern became clear:

Productivity improves most when risk is reduced.
Protective farming isn’t a theory.

It’s a practical approach that helps farmers safeguard their fields against uncertainty whether that uncertainty comes from weather, weeds, pests, or water stress.

What our field data and farmer conversations show today is encouraging.
Farmers using protective farming solutions have seen lower input costs, reduced crop loss, and more consistent harvests.

These aren’t abstract numbers.
They’re stories of families sleeping better, knowing that an unexpected rain won’t wash away months of hard work.

We’ve seen cases where farmers reported saving up to ₹2.5 lakhs annually through smarter input use and better crop preservation.

Not because of luck.
But because of preparation.

This is what makes protective farming more than an innovation.
In an age of climate unpredictability, it has become a practical lifeline.
There’s still a lot to do.

More regions to reach.
More farms to protect.
More uncertainty to design for.

But every acre protected is a step toward resilient agriculture.

Here’s to farming with confidence not chance. 🌱

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India

One thing years of on-ground exposure teaches you very quickly:

Real progress is rarely dramatic.

It’s quiet.
It’s incremental.
And it’s deeply practical.

Farmers don’t look for disruption.
They look for dependability.

What works is adopted.
What doesn’t is discarded no matter how well it’s packaged.

That reality builds a certain humility.

You learn to listen more than you speak.
To observe before suggesting.
To respect experience that comes from repetition, not theory.

Some of the best insights don’t come from reports or presentations.

They come from simple conversations:
“What worked last season?”
“What failed?”
“What would you change next time?”

Those answers shape better thinking than any framework.

Progress, especially in agriculture, isn’t about moving fast.
It’s about moving right season after season.

And when solutions align with ground reality, trust follows naturally.
That trust is the most valuable outcome of all.

In agriculture, growth is often measured the wrong way.

For years, progress has been associated with:

more inputs,
more chemicals,
more interventions,
more short-term yield.

But anyone who has spent time on the ground with farmers knows this isn’t sustainable.

Real agricultural progress comes from clarity, not complexity.
It comes from understanding the soil before prescribing a solution.

From precision instead of excess.
From reducing waste rather than increasing dependency.

Today, farmers are dealing with rising input costs, unpredictable weather, and shrinking margins.
In this reality, adding more products is not innovation.

Removing inefficiencies is.
The future of agriculture will not be built by flooding fields with solutions.

It will be built by:
• targeted, data-backed interventions
• practices that protect long-term soil health
• technologies that respect the farmer’s effort and economics

True agri-innovation is about doing fewer things, better and doing them consistently.

When systems become simpler, adoption increases.
When adoption increases, impact compounds.

Sustainable agriculture isn’t a buzzword.
It’s the only path that works for farmers, ecosystems, and the future of food.

Curious to hear from farmers, agri-founders, and industry leaders what’s the one inefficiency in agriculture we need to remove first to create real, lasting impact?

We call startup founders entrepreneurs.
But we hesitate to use the same word for farmers.

A startup founder risks capital once.
A farmer risks capital every season.

They invest before returns are guaranteed.
They make decisions with incomplete information.
They operate under uncertainty where weather, soil, prices, pests, and timing collide.

There is no pitch deck.
No safety buffer.
No second chance within the same season.

One season. One outcome.

My shift from boardrooms, meetings, and presentations to actual fields changed how I view agriculture.

In farming, theory meets reality fast.

What works on slides often struggles on soil.
What looks efficient in models ignores human behaviour, climate variability, and regional nuance.

That’s when one thing became clear.

Agricultural innovation doesn’t fail because farmers resist change.
It fails when solutions ignore how farming actually works.

Farmers don’t reject technology.
They reject tools that don’t respect their constraints.

From Cardiff to the khet, the biggest lesson has been humility.

Listening more.
Observing longer.
Accepting that progress comes from trust, not instruction.

Real impact happens when technology adapts to farmers, not the other way around.

When solutions are built around:
• local conditions
• real crop timelines
• practical economics
• long-term sustainability

If we want agriculture to move forward, we need to stop selling ideas.

And start building alongside the people who live with the consequences of those ideas every single season.

Because the farmer isn’t just a user.

The farmer is India’s original entrepreneur.

For decades, the primary question in agriculture was simple:

“How do we increase yield?”
That question is slowly changing.

Across states, crops, and farm sizes, a more important concern is emerging:
How do we reduce risk?

Recent agri research and field observations point to a clear shift:
Farmers are no longer optimizing only for output they are optimizing for stability.

Why?

Because uncertainty has increased.
• Weather patterns are unpredictable
• Input costs are volatile
• Soil health is under pressure

In such conditions, even a high-yield crop can become a loss.
That’s why practices focused on protection, soil care, and resource efficiency are gaining traction.

Not because they promise miracles
but because they bring predictability.

When water loss reduces,
when soil decisions are informed,
when crops are shielded from extreme stress
decision-making improves.

And better decisions compound over seasons.

The future of agriculture won’t be defined by who grows the most in one season,

but by who can grow consistently across many.

The biggest myth in agriculture is simple: more is always better.

More land.
More inputs.
More output.

On paper, it makes sense.
In reality, it’s created a quiet paradox.

As quantity increases, quality starts to disappear.
Yields may climb briefly,
but soil health weakens underneath.

Costs rise faster than returns.
And farmers work harder each season just to stand still.

Here’s the paradox no one talks about:

When we chase quantity, we lose efficiency.
When we ignore quality, we lose the future.

Healthy soil doesn’t respond to excess.
It responds to balance.

Crops don’t fail because farmers lack effort.
They fail when decisions are made without understanding what the land actually needs.

Quality in agriculture isn’t abstract.
It’s practical.

- The right input, not more input
- The right timing, not faster timing
- The right data, not inherited assumptions

When quality leads, quantity follows naturally and sustainably. 
But when quantity leads, quality is sacrificed.

And the cost doesn’t show up immediately.
It arrives later as depleted land, rising input dependency, unstable yields, and financial pressure.

The future of farming isn’t about choosing between quality or quantity.
It’s about recognising that one cannot exist without the other.

Quality isn’t a brake on growth.
It’s the system that makes growth possible.

And the farmers who understand this early don’t just grow crops.
They build resilience, stability, and longevity into their land.

That’s the real advantage.

This is exactly what we’re building at Growit India helping farmers move from guesswork to clarity, from excess to precision, and from short-term yield chasing to long-term farm health.

Because better decisions today create better harvests tomorrow. 🌱

India sells nearly 10 lakh tractors every year.

That number alone should challenge how we think about Indian farmers.

A tractor is not a casual purchase.
₹12–15 lakh upfront.
Years of EMIs.
High operating costs.
Long replacement cycles.

Yet farmers commit to it, season after season.

(CY 2025 retail sales ~9.8 lakh. Momentum already visible into 2026.)

So the question is not whether Indian farmers can afford to invest.

They already do.

The real question is what they choose to invest in next.

Every buying decision runs through the same filters:

→ Will the machine hold up during sowing and harvest
→ Will service arrive when the window is tight
→ Will diesel costs stay manageable
→ Will resale value survive after 5–7 years
→ Will this decision protect the entire crop cycle

Still, hesitation gets labelled as “rural slowdown.”

That framing is convenient.
And inaccurate.

The farmers buying tractors are progressive farmers.

They are not buying symbols of status.
They are buying production certainty.

These farmers think like operators and planners.

They assess:
- Cash flow impact
- Downtime risk
- Service reliability
- Exit value

That is why tractors are not chosen for horsepower alone.

They are chosen for confidence.

Confidence that the machine will not fail mid-season.
Confidence that service will not drag for weeks.
Confidence that resale will remain intact.

This also explains why:

40–45% of agri-equipment demand still flows through used machinery.

Not because farmers lack money.

Because they manage risk carefully.

In Indian agriculture today, risk reduction matters more than discounts.

The modern Indian farmer is not price-driven.

He is decision-driven.

And the next wave of tractor buyers will reward brands that deliver:

→ Proven performance in Indian soil and climate
→ Predictive service, not breakdown recovery
→ Fuel efficiency that protects annual income
→ Technology that reduces downtime
→ Strong resale that lowers total cost of ownership

This market is not shrinking.

It is evolving.

Progressive farmers are no longer buying machines in isolation.
They are buying outcomes they can rely on season after season.

The brands that win next will not be the loudest or the cheapest.

They will be the ones that consistently earn farmer confidence
in performance, service, and resale value.

That is where India’s next phase of tractor growth comes from.

India is sitting on one of the largest medicinal plant opportunities in the world.

Yet, we keep losing value at the same place every time:
the farm gate.
Not because farmers aren’t doing the work.

But because their effort is rarely measured, verified, or protected.
Today, a farmer can grow a high-quality medicinal crop with discipline and care and still get paid the same as someone who didn’t.

That single gap destroys incentives, trust, and consistency across the entire supply chain.

This is why AI-enabled farm-gate quality assessment and digital traceability matter so much.

When quality is verified at the source:

→ Farmers are finally rewarded for doing things right
→ Adulteration drops sharply
→ Buyers gain predictability
→ Exports gain credibility
→ India moves from “low-cost supplier” to trusted global source

At Growit, we’ve seen this on the ground.
Increasing yield alone doesn’t change outcomes.
Protecting the farmer’s effort does.

Technology here isn’t replacing traditional knowledge.
It’s amplifying it making quality visible, provable, and valuable from the very first step.

India doesn’t need more production.
It needs systems that protect integrity at scale.

Because if quality isn’t verified at the farm gate,
can we ever truly build trust downstream? 🌿

taplio

The Battle

Gian Seehra

Saurabh Agarwal

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreGian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSaurabh Agarwal's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Gian Seehra

Saurabh Agarwal

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Gian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreSaurabh Agarwal's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreGian Seehra's LinkedIn Performance