 |
|
The debate surrounding the Indian startup ecosystem's focus on consumer technology versus deep technology has reignited, fueled by recent remarks made by Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal. At the Startup Maha Kumbh in Delhi, Goyal questioned the prevalence of consumer-centric ventures, seemingly dismissing them as mere 'dukaandari' (shopkeeping) and expressing concern over the relatively small number of deep-tech startups in the country. This criticism has drawn a sharp response from Karan Chawla, co-founder of Gaonzy, who vehemently defended consumer tech startups and highlighted the systemic shortcomings hindering the growth of deep-tech innovation in India. Chawla's rebuttal centers on the argument that the issue isn't the type of ventures startups are pursuing, but rather the lack of institutional support, patient capital, and a coherent policy environment necessary for deep-tech to thrive. He argues that comparing Indian startups to those in China or the US is unfair without acknowledging the significantly different levels of state funding, local procurement mandates, and access to global capital that exist in those countries. Chawla's defense of consumer startups underscores their significant contributions to the Indian economy, including job creation, the formalization of micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and the development of robust logistics networks. He challenges the notion that only deep-tech innovations constitute true progress, asserting that consumer-focused businesses also play a vital role in solving everyday problems and driving economic growth. The core of Chawla’s argument revolves around the notion that innovation should not be narrowly defined. He points to successful Indian consumer tech companies like Zepto, Swiggy, and Flipkart, which have revolutionized their respective sectors and created significant value for both consumers and the economy. Dismissing these ventures as mere 'dukaandari' overlooks their complexity, their innovative use of technology, and their impact on the lives of millions of Indians. The comparison to established Indian conglomerates like Reliance, Tata, and Infosys further emphasizes the point that established players often receive a different level of scrutiny and are not subjected to the same criticisms when they pursue similar ventures. Chawla's critique extends beyond the lack of financial support. He points to systemic issues such as the Angel Tax, limited access to domestic institutional capital, and frequent policy changes that create uncertainty for startups. These challenges make it difficult for startups to take the long-term risks required for deep-tech innovation. The absence of globally recognized deep-tech products from Indian public sector undertakings (PSUs) further highlights the systemic issues hindering innovation in this sector. Chawla questions why institutions like LIC, SBI, and insurance funds are not actively investing in deep-tech venture capital funds, which could provide the necessary capital for early-stage deep-tech startups. He suggests that a lack of risk appetite and a bureaucratic approach within these institutions may be contributing to the problem. In conclusion, Chawla defends consumer startups as crucial economic engines, responsible for creating jobs, improving logistics, formalizing MSMEs, and delighting customers. He asserts that Indian startups have done more for India's economy in a decade than many legacy institutions, and the focus should be on better supporting the entire startup ecosystem. The issue of funding, the existence of coherent policy environment, and acknowledgement of the importance of a consumer based technological footprint for India's economic growth are central to Chawla's position.
Chawla's arguments resonate with many in the Indian startup ecosystem, who feel that the government's focus on deep-tech should not come at the expense of supporting consumer tech ventures. While deep-tech innovation is undoubtedly important for long-term economic growth and national security, consumer tech startups play a vital role in creating jobs, driving economic activity, and improving the lives of ordinary Indians. The government's role should be to create a supportive environment for all types of startups, rather than favoring one over the other. This includes providing access to capital, streamlining regulations, and fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. The criticism of Indian startups as 'dukaandari' also reflects a broader debate about the nature of innovation and economic development. Some argue that India needs to focus on developing high-tech industries that can compete with global leaders like the US and China. Others argue that India's economic development should be driven by its own unique strengths and needs, which may include a greater emphasis on consumer tech and services. Ultimately, the optimal path for India's economic development likely involves a combination of both approaches. India needs to invest in deep-tech innovation to ensure its long-term competitiveness, but it also needs to support consumer tech startups that are creating jobs and driving economic growth in the short term. The government's role is to create an environment that fosters both types of innovation and allows Indian entrepreneurs to flourish. The debate also raises questions about the role of government in supporting innovation. While some argue that the government should take a more active role in directing investment and promoting specific industries, others believe that the government should primarily focus on creating a level playing field and allowing the market to determine which ventures succeed. There is no easy answer to this question, and the optimal approach likely depends on the specific context and industry. However, it is clear that the government has a crucial role to play in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship, whether through direct funding, tax incentives, regulatory reform, or other measures. It must foster an enviornment where entrepreneurs will risk investing in their own ideas and creating opportunity in markets which are currently untapped, under-utilized, or undeveloped. The creation of such environments involves removing barriers to entry, simplifying regulations, and promoting competition. By creating a level playing field, the government can allow the market to allocate resources efficiently and ensure that the best ideas have the opportunity to succeed.
In addition to addressing the specific criticisms raised by Goyal, Chawla's LinkedIn post also highlights some of the broader challenges facing the Indian startup ecosystem. These challenges include a lack of access to capital, particularly for early-stage ventures; complex and burdensome regulations; a shortage of skilled talent; and a lack of a supportive culture for entrepreneurship. Addressing these challenges will require a concerted effort from the government, the private sector, and the education system. The government needs to streamline regulations, reduce bureaucracy, and create a more predictable and transparent business environment. The private sector needs to increase its investment in startups, particularly in deep-tech ventures. The education system needs to focus on developing the skills and knowledge that are needed for the 21st-century economy. And all stakeholders need to work together to foster a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation. Chawla's call for institutional support, patient capital, and a coherent policy environment resonates deeply within the Indian startup community. The current regulatory landscape, often characterized by unpredictable policy changes and bureaucratic hurdles, makes it difficult for startups to plan for the long term and attract investment. The lack of patient capital, particularly from domestic institutional investors, further exacerbates the problem, forcing startups to rely heavily on foreign funding. This dependence on foreign capital can make them vulnerable to external shocks and limit their ability to pursue long-term strategic goals. A coherent policy environment, characterized by clear and consistent regulations, is essential for creating a stable and predictable business environment that encourages investment and innovation. The government needs to work closely with the startup community to develop policies that are tailored to their specific needs and that promote long-term growth and sustainability. Goyal’s recent announcement of a startup helpline under the Startup India initiative, designed to address corruption, suggest legal reforms, and flag grievances, signals an intent to address some of these issues. However, the effectiveness of this initiative will depend on its implementation and the willingness of the government to take meaningful action on the issues raised by entrepreneurs. The creation of such help lines and a willingness to listen to the issues of early stage startup companies can be a powerful motivator for entrepreneurs, and encourage the risk taking which is required in a well functioning innovation economy.
Ultimately, the success of the Indian startup ecosystem will depend on the ability of all stakeholders to work together to create a supportive and enabling environment. This requires a shift in mindset, from viewing startups as mere 'dukaandari' to recognizing their potential to drive economic growth, create jobs, and solve some of India's most pressing challenges. It also requires a commitment to providing startups with the resources they need to succeed, including access to capital, streamlined regulations, and a supportive culture. The government’s role in fostering innovation is not merely about directing investment or picking winners, but about creating a level playing field where all startups have the opportunity to compete and succeed. This includes ensuring fair competition, protecting intellectual property rights, and promoting transparency and accountability. By creating such an environment, the government can unleash the full potential of the Indian startup ecosystem and drive sustainable economic growth. The emphasis on 'dukaandari' versus 'deep-tech' often overlooks the crucial role that consumer-facing startups play in shaping the digital landscape and driving adoption of new technologies. These startups often serve as a bridge between complex technologies and everyday consumers, making them more accessible and user-friendly. They also play a vital role in creating a digital ecosystem that supports the growth of other businesses, including deep-tech ventures. Furthermore, the success of consumer-facing startups can attract talent and investment to the Indian startup ecosystem, creating a virtuous cycle of growth and innovation. By focusing solely on deep-tech, the government risks neglecting the potential of consumer tech to drive broader economic and social impact. The integration of AI, machine learning, and other advanced technologies into consumer-facing applications is blurring the lines between 'dukaandari' and 'deep-tech,' making it increasingly difficult to categorize startups neatly into these two buckets. Many consumer-facing startups are leveraging advanced technologies to personalize customer experiences, optimize operations, and create new business models. This convergence of consumer tech and deep-tech is driving innovation across a wide range of industries and creating new opportunities for Indian entrepreneurs. The ongoing debate surrounding the Indian startup ecosystem's focus on consumer technology versus deep technology highlights the need for a more nuanced and holistic approach to supporting innovation. The government should focus on creating a supportive environment for all types of startups, while also recognizing the unique challenges and opportunities facing each sector. By fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, the government can unlock the full potential of the Indian startup ecosystem and drive sustainable economic growth for years to come.