Every few weeks, this argument shows up again online.
Indian IT companies missed the AI race. Founders only build D2C, quick commerce, and easy money.
Nobody wants to solve hard problems.
I think that criticism is aimed at the wrong place. Founders should build what they believe in and what they know how to execute.
If someone believes deep tech matters this much, and they have the capability and the capital, they should go build it - or fund it properly. There are large companies in India sitting on serious cash reserves right now.
Most of them are not taking meaningful deep-tech risk.
That is the actual gap.
And the "nobody backs deep tech" story doesn't hold up in my opinion. Deepinder Goyal, a food delivery founder, has personally backed Continue Research with $25 million, LAT Aerospace with $20 million, and was involved in Temple's $54 million raise. That is close to $99 million, or roughly ₹850 crore, across deep-tech bets in less than a year.
That matters. Because it shows the issue is not that capital does not exist. It is that most of it is not being directed there. And one more thing gets missed in this debate.
A business does not become more valuable to the country just because it sounds more technical.
Whether it is a rocket or a biscuit, the real question is the same: Is it creating value, or draining it?
A company that pays people well, builds trust, and compounds for decades and solves a real market problem contributes more than a deep tech bet with no market to sell into.
So I do not think founders are the problem.
The problem is that the people with capital, patience, and strategic room to back hard-tech creation are still not doing enough of it.
If deep tech matters this much to the people complaining, the money for it is already in the room. It is just not being spent on it.