Ice-Creams, Chips, and Startup Dreams: Decoding Piyush Goyal’s Wake-Up Call

Last week at Startup Mahakumbh 2025, India’s Commerce & Industry Minister Piyush Goyal served a blunt spoonful of reality (and controversy) to the startup crowd. In a fiery speech, he complained that many new Indian startups are just building “food delivery apps, turning unemployed youth into cheap labour so the rich can get their meals without leaving home.” He asked rhetorically, “Should we aspire to be delivery boys and girls? Do we only want to make ice cream or chips? Are we content just running shops?”​(m.economictimes.com). In other words, he was using ice cream and chips as metaphors: don’t aim to merely sell trivial consumer goods or services, aim to design the very chips (semiconductors) and cutting-edge tech that power the world.

Predictably, the startup world exploded into debate. Some took offence, saying the minister was disrespecting founders and easy-business jobs; others agreed that India indeed needs more deep-tech innovation. In this article, we’ll unpack exactly what Goyal said (and likely meant), examine why it sparked such a furor among entrepreneurs, and then dive deeper: What is the true purpose of a startup? Along the way we’ll compare India’s startup scene with global trends, highlight startups that have made real impact (beyond just getting big valuations), and suggest a balanced way forward so India’s innovators can keep dreaming big and solving the real problems of today.

What Piyush Goyal Actually Said (and Meant)

At the Mahakumbh event (a big national startup summit), Goyal didn’t literally ban ice cream or delivery apps – but he used them as provocative examples of “lifestyle” or “convenience” businesses. His exact quotes were sharp:

“We are focused on food delivery apps, turning unemployed youth into cheap labour so the rich can get their meals without leaving home.” and “Should we aspire to be delivery boys and girls? Do we only want to make ice cream or chips? Are we content just running shops?”​(m.economictimes.com).

In plain language, Goyal was saying: Our startups are mostly playing it safe – food delivery, quick-commerce, small e-commerce brands – instead of tackling big challenges. That keeps our youth busy delivering pizzas or selling smoothies, but it doesn’t move the needle on India’s future tech leadership. He said it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the underlying message was clear: aim higher. For example, by “chips” he really meant computer chips (semiconductors) – a hot topic since global chip shortages.

In the audience and online, many wondered: Did he just insult us? Actually, some founders who heard his full speech say he was using those examples not to belittle entrepreneurs, but to “shock and mirror” them into thinking bigger. Goyal himself later defended the remarks as an “appeal” to aim for world-class innovation (​m.economictimes.com). He stressed that his words were meant to inspire founders to focus on deep-tech areas (like semiconductors, AI, space tech) rather than just lifestyle or convenience apps​(m.economictimes.com​m.economictimes.com). He even blamed social media for twisting his meaning, saying some critics (especially certain Congress-linked accounts) deliberately misinterpreted his speech​(businesstoday.in​m.economictimes.com).

Regardless of intent, the soundbite was dramatic: the nation’s Startup Minister asked if we were content to “make ice cream or chips.” That one-liner stuck in everyone’s mind (and headlines) and kicked off a debate about where India’s startup scene is headed.

Startup Founders: Cheers and Jeers

The reactions from the startup ecosystem were mixed – and animated. On one side, some founders nodded and clapped. For instance, Bhavish Aggarwal (co-founder of Ola) publicly said he “fully agrees” with Goyal’s point that India needs to introspect on why it’s mostly building consumer apps, and instead focus on “innovation and future tech”(​m.economictimes.com). Aman Gupta of Boat (audio products) said he heard the full speech and felt the minister “wasn’t against founders. He believes in us. His point was simple: India has come far, but to lead the world… we need to aim higher.”(​m.economictimes.com). Even industrialist Harsh Goenka compared Goyal’s remarks to classic startup lore (very long work weeks, etc.) and said the minister was being “directional, not literal” – urging effort over comfort​(m.economictimes.com​m.economictimes.com).

On the other side, many were upset that Goyal seemed to be dismissing entire sectors that are providing jobs and services. Aadit Palicha, CEO of grocery delivery startup Zepto, shot back that his company alone created jobs for “almost 1.5 Lakh real people” and pays “Rs 1,000+ crores” in taxes annually​(m.economictimes.com). If that’s not “miracle in Indian innovation,” he asked, what is? He implied that even if it’s “just” food delivery, millions of people depend on it. Mohandas Pai, former Infosys CFO and veteran investor, pointed out that India has thousands of deep-tech startups, and the bigger problem is that “they are small due to a lack of capital because funding is limited”(​m.economictimes.com). He sarcastically asked why Goyal and the government aren’t focusing on fixing funding bottlenecks, given that China invested $845 billion in startups (2014–24) versus only $160 billion in India​(m.economictimes.com). Pai implied the issue isn’t entrepreneurs’ ambition but the ecosystem – regulation, funding, and support.

A vivid critique came from a semiconductor entrepreneur (who even claimed to have worked at Intel). He penned a rant on Reddit in response, describing Indian deep-tech startups’ struggles. In it he said his company (founded 2018) “stopped wasting our time trying to get Indian clients — private sector, government or defence”. He detailed how every proposal seemed to hit a wall of bureaucracy: government officials would reply “You build it, then we’ll decide,” or “We won’t buy – go find whether there is a market for this.” Such answers, he argued, kill deep-tech projects: “No startup will put crores into building something without an assured buyer,” he wrote (​economictimes.indiatimes.com)​. His post resonated across social media, highlighting that many hardware and advanced-tech startups in India face a lack of follow-through and demand, even from the government.

In short, supporters saw Goyal’s words as a needed push (“aim for the stars!”), while critics felt he was undermining success stories and ignoring systemic issues. The government’s own line (as reported in media) was that the minister “was trying to show them the huge potential that India has to dream and aspire big,” not shooting people down (​m.economictimes.com). He even called his remarks “an appeal” rather than an attack (​m.economictimes.com). But to many on social media, the timing and wording (just as the startup sector was reeling from a global funding slowdown) felt like a slap.

Citing Perspectives:

Tech media like The Economic Times summarized both sides. They quoted Goyal’s speech and also voices like Zepto’s and Pai’s (​m.economictimes.com). Business Today reported Goyal’s response, where he accused opponents of twisting his message​ (businesstoday.in). These credible reports help us piece together the timeline: Goyal’s comment at the Mahakumbh drew immediate buzz, founders and investors reacted (both praising and defending themselves), and then Goyal reiterated that his intent was positive.

What’s a Startup For, Anyway?

All this friction gets to a deeper philosophical question: What should startups be trying to do? Obviously, the short answer is “solve problems and make money.” But beyond the clichés, founders and policymakers often differ on whether a startup’s ultimate goal is wealth creation, job creation, innovation leadership, or all of the above.

One classic definition (from Silicon Valley guru Steve Blank) is that a startup is a “temporary organization in search of a repeatable and scalable business model.” In simple terms, it’s a new company aiming to grow very fast. Often that means building technology or a business model that disrupts an industry (think Uber for taxis, Airbnb for hotels). Silicon Valley lore (Paul Graham, Y Combinator, etc.) suggests startups should be bold: chase huge markets, and solve problems in a way nobody else has.

But in practice, many early-stage companies do start with small ideas: food delivery, niche e-commerce, gadgets. Why? Because these have quick paths to revenue and job creation. A neighborhood delivery startup may not be world-changing tech, but it does employ riders, organizers, cooks, and tailors. It does help consumers, and it does inject activity (and taxes) into the economy.

So when Goyal questioned if we want to only be delivery boys or ice-cream makers​, was he implying that such startups have no value at all? Not necessarily. They’re valuable – but his point was solely focusing on those quick-service models may leave more transformative innovation untapped. In that view, the “purpose of a startup” can be seen on a spectrum:

• Job Creation & Service: Some startups mainly aim to create employment and provide a service (e.g., food apps, gig work platforms). They boost the economy by creating livelihoods. Example: a grocery delivery startup employs thousands, even if the core idea (buying groceries online) isn’t “cutting-edge tech.”

• Efficiency & Convenience: Many startups improve efficiency. Uber reduced wait times for taxis; Swiggy streamlined food ordering. These solve real inconveniences in daily life. They may not be noble missions, but they make life a bit easier for city dwellers.

• Problem-Solving & Innovation: Other startups tackle big problems or invent new technologies. These often need more patience and capital but can create enduring impact. Think of companies making affordable medical devices for rural clinics, or developing low-cost solar panels. Their success can ripple through whole industries.

• World-Class Tech Leadership: A subset aims to create truly new technologies (semiconductors, AI, space travel). These are high-risk and long-term, but a country that fosters them can move up the global value chain. Examples include developing the “next ARM processor,” launching commercial satellites, or curing diseases with biotech.

So, a balanced startup ecosystem arguably needs all of the above. The controversy highlights this balance: consumer-tech startups (like food delivery apps) are near-term generators of jobs and revenue, but alone they won’t make India a tech superpower. Conversely, if every entrepreneur ignores Uber-like ideas for only moonshots, everyday opportunities and livelihoods are missed.

It’s worth noting that even in Silicon Valley, many unicorns aren’t solving life-or-death problems: one-click clothes delivery or social games can scale to billions. Yet the big narrative around startups often focuses on “disruption” and “innovation.” The key question is impact: is impact measured by how many people are employed and served, by how much money is made, or by how fundamentally something changes?

Some thinkers argue startups should primarily add value to society. For example, Muhammad Yunus (grameen bank founder) famously said entrepreneurs should aim to “create social value, not just financial value.” Others, like venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, emphasize that investing is about winning businesses – which often means targeting big markets.

For our purposes, we’ll say: the true purpose of a startup is to solve a real problem or improve a process, in a scalable way that eventually becomes a viable business. That problem could be mundane (delivering lunch efficiently) or profound (curing a disease). What matters is that it creates value – economically, socially, or both.

What Kind of Innovation Matters Most?

Following Goyal’s ice-cream-chips metaphor, let’s map out categories of innovation and why each matters. We can think in terms of outcomes:

• Job-Creating Innovation: These are businesses that may not have deep R&D, but they open up new employment avenues. Delivery apps, ride-hailing, small manufacturing – they often employ millions of people. In India, where job creation is urgent, this is crucial. Even if the tech is simple, the system innovation (app + network + workforce) has value.

• Local-Empowering Innovation: Startups that solve local problems (like rural healthcare, farmer markets, urban waste management) empower communities. For instance, an agri-tech startup connecting farmers to markets can boost incomes in villages. These innovations might not become global sensations, but they strengthen local economies and improve lives directly. They can also foster inclusive growth.

• Efficiency-Enhancing Innovation: These aim to do existing tasks faster/cheaper. Examples: fintech apps making payments quicker, logistics startups optimizing trucking, AI tools automating admin tasks. Efficiency gains often translate into economic growth. Silicon Valley heavyweights (like Amazon or Shopify) fall here – they didn’t invent commerce, but they made it vastly more efficient on a global scale.

• Long-Lasting Impact (Deep Tech): Some innovations are aimed at big leaps: renewable energy tech that fights climate change, biotech that cures diseases, space-tech that expands human reach. These require heavy R&D and time, but success can shape the future. They often don’t create as many immediate jobs, but they build human capital and capabilities. Think of how internet protocols (invented by academics and early companies) gave rise to today’s trillion-dollar industries.

No one type is inherently better; they serve different purposes. A vibrant startup ecosystem usually has a mix. For example, Tesla started as a deep-tech auto company (electric vehicles), but it also spurred a jobs boom in EV manufacturing and became a consumer brand. SpaceX is pure deep tech (rockets, space transport) with long timelines, but it has also created thousands of engineering and manufacturing jobs. Uber and Airbnb, while not dealing with life-or-death tech, created huge gig economies. Each found their audience and impact.

In India’s context, Goyal’s critique was that too many startups were clustering in one corner: food delivery, small D2C brands (like selling herbal soaps online), and quick-commerce (groceries in 10 minutes). These can generate jobs, yes, but critics say: what if we’re neglecting solar energy startups or homegrown chip manufacturers? Imagine if India’s creative energy went into low-cost electric batteries – we’d cure two problems at once (climate change and energy import reliance).

An analogy: If India’s economy were a grand buffet, consumer-tech startups (food delivery, e-commerce) are like tasty snacks – lots of people enjoy them, they’re readily available, and they fill a gap. But deep-tech startups are like a multi-course gourmet meal: harder to cook but potentially more nourishing in the long run. We need both the snacks and the hearty dishes.

A balanced diet of innovation means celebrating Zomato (which gave billions in funding and millions of dinners delivered) and say, a low-cost vaccine manufacturing startup that could one day save lives globally. Both matter, but for different reasons. Goyal was essentially saying: Let’s not have a buffet that’s all desserts and no veggies. The ecosystem’s task is then to ensure appetite (funding, policy) is there for every course on the menu.

India vs. the World: A Global Startup Ecosystem Showdown

To put India’s situation in perspective, it helps to look around the world. Startup cultures vary greatly in the US, China, Europe – reflecting markets, funding, and mindset.

• Silicon Valley (USA): The original startup heartland still dominates. The US is home to nearly half of all global unicorns (private companies valued > $1B), including giants like Apple, Amazon, Google, and newer unicorns (SpaceX, Stripe, Instacart, etc.). Venture capital here is vast (billions of dollars per month) and risk-takers are celebrated. You can find startups on any problem – from AI and chips to better dog-walking apps. There’s also a healthy appetite for “moonshots” (think Google X projects) and a strong pipeline from university research to startups. The US market is big and integrated, making it easier to scale globally. Regulations can be looser (for tech) and capital more patient. On the flip side, many US tech startups aim solely at billion-dollar exits, and bubbles can form (as seen in 2021-22 in fintech and crypto).

• China: Just a decade ago, China boomed with startups (Alipay, WeChat, ByteDance, Didi, etc.). The Chinese government played an active role – funding tech, protecting nascent industries (like discouraging foreign Google/Amazon), and even setting goals like “Made in China 2025” to boost semiconductors, AI, etc. Chinese startups scale fast due to the huge domestic market (1.4 billion people) and supportive policies (e.g. subsidies for electric vehicles). But there’s a trade-off: in 2021-22, Beijing cracked down on big tech’s financial excesses (Ant Group IPO was halted, Didi was fined, etc.), leading to more caution among investors. Nonetheless, China still churns out both consumer tech and deep-tech (sense tech, robotics, biotech). Comparison to India: China’s playbook has been government-guided tech leadership and mass adoption, whereas India’s ecosystem has been more bottom-up and market-driven.

• Europe: Europe’s startup scene is different. It has talent and ideas (think Sweden’s Spotify, Estonia’s Skype, Germany’s BioNTech) but often less funding and more regulation. Startups in Europe tend to be slow and steady – focusing on industrial tech (manufacturing automation, pharmaceuticals), clean energy, mobility (like electric trucks), and FinTech. The market fragmentation (different languages, rules) can slow scaling. But Europe also has advantages: a strong emphasis on data privacy (GDPR) and social impact, so sectors like healthtech, greentech, and ethical AI are big. Unicorn growth is happening (London, Berlin, Stockholm, Paris, Tel Aviv) but at a more cautious pace than US/China. For India, a lesson might be that Europe shows the value of regulation-backed stability (careful growth) and investment in strategic industries (e.g. Airbus for aviation, not one pizza delivery app).

• Rest of Asia: In South Korea and Japan, big conglomerates like Samsung and Toyota incubate startups, often in hardware. Israel is famous for cybersecurity and defense tech. Southeast Asia (Singapore, Indonesia, etc.) has a rising app economy (Grab, Gojek, etc.) but also pushes smart-city solutions. African startup scene (Kenya’s M-Pesa) shows how mobile tech can leapfrog old infrastructure.

In sum, India’s startup trends have some unique flavors: a large English-speaking population, a youthful workforce, and rapid smartphone adoption. Indian founders quickly adopted consumer tech trends (Uber clones, TikTok clones, etc.) and made local successes. By late 2021 India was on fire: TechCrunch noted “capital flowing to Indian startups surged… to about $39 billion” in 2021​ (techcrunch.com), and India hit “81 unicorns” by year-end (​techcrunch.com) (though some of these later struggled when funding tightened). Many of these were consumer-focused (fintech apps like Slice, education apps like Byju’s, quick-commerce apps like Zepto, etc.).

Compared globally, the U.S. and China still have far more unicorns and funding. For example, Silicon Valley boasts dozens of $10B+ startups (Google, Facebook, SpaceX, etc.) and is home to roughly half of the world’s unicorns. Europe’s rising but hasn’t churned out a match for Apple or Alibaba yet (though it gave us Spotify, Klarna, BioNTech). India’s growth has been remarkable but from a lower base: going from a handful to dozens of unicorns in a few years. Importantly, India’s market is younger and less saturated, so many startups ride the wave of a booming economy and digital shift, whereas U.S./China startups often also focus on global dominance.

Head-to-head examples: In consumer tech (food, e-comm, fintech), India’s Zomato or Paytm compete with U.S. Uber or Chinese Meituan, but on local terms. In hardware, India is catching up: IIT-spinoffs and companies like TSMC (Taiwan’s giant) show that Asia leads chip manufacturing, while India is only just building fabs (like the new government-backed semicon plants). In greentech, China’s CATL (batteries) vs India’s budding battery startups; Europe’s Northvolt vs India’s Amara Raja (batteries for vehicles).

Key takeaway: Every ecosystem has a mix of “fun” consumer apps and serious tech projects. The question is finding the right balance. India’s critics like Goyal argue we need more of the “serious tech” side (semiconductors, clean energy, space tech) in our portfolio. But it’s also fair to say that consumer-tech startups have laid the groundwork by building India’s digital economy and talent pool.

Startup Stars: Beyond Unicorns and Money

It’s easy to equate startup success with unicorn status or massive funding. But some of the most inspiring companies never became Silicon-Valley giants – yet they made lasting differences. Let’s highlight a few (Indian and global) that remind us what impactful startups can look like:

• M-Pesa (Kenya, launched 2007): Not Indian, but worth mentioning globally. M-Pesa is a mobile money platform that lets users send and receive payments via basic mobile phones. Before smartphones, it basically invented mobile banking for the developing world. Today ~100 million people in Africa and Asia use M-Pesa, and it’s considered one of the most successful financial inclusion projects ever. It vastly changed the economy by giving the unbanked instant digital access. (It wasn’t a “unicorn” or Silicon Valley darling, but it transformed lives.)

• Niramai (India): A Bangalore-based med-tech startup using AI for early breast cancer detection. It developed a novel, radiation-free screening method (Thermalytix). By focusing on a major health problem and leveraging deep tech, Niramai helps with early diagnosis in low-resource settings. Though small, such innovations can save countless lives by catching cancer sooner.

• Ather Energy (India): An electric scooter maker. It’s doing for two-wheelers what Tesla did for cars. By building and selling sophisticated e-scooters (and the charging infrastructure), Ather is addressing urban pollution and fossil fuel dependence. Instead of importing electric tech, India is homegrown building it. This kind of startup creates thousands of manufacturing jobs and moves the country toward clean energy.

• Kickstart (Africa, India): (Non-profit startup) KickStart designs manual irrigation pumps for small farmers. Over the years, more than 900,000 pumps have been sold across Africa and India, enabling farmers to grow multiple crops a year instead of one. The result: dramatically higher incomes for many families. This isn’t “techy,” but it’s innovation (simple mechanical engineering) with huge economic and social returns. It shows startups can be philanthropic too.

• Biotech Innovations (India): Companies like CEMIO (BioMatrix) created affordable 3D bioprinters for research labs, boosting local R&D. Tata Trusts/MapmyIndia (mapping for disaster relief and digitization). These ventures changed specific sectors and often went under the radar.

• Patagonia (USA): A global example: the outdoor clothing company (started as a small startup) that prioritized sustainable practices. It’s a billion-dollar brand, but also famous for environmental activism (like donating its Black Friday sales to conservation). It shows that a business can do well and do good at the same time.

• Airbnb (USA): Arguably changed travel by making spare rooms profitable and connecting hosts with guests worldwide. Not “deep tech,” but socially it redefined hospitality and gave many people extra income.

• M-KOPA Solar (Kenya): A solar energy startup letting off-grid households pay for home solar systems over time via mobile payments. It has brought electricity to over 750,000 homes in Africa. Again, money and impact.

What’s common in these examples? Each solved a clear problem and scaled up: banking for the unbanked, healthcare access, clean transport, food production, sustainable living. Most of these are mission-driven enterprises. They did raise money (sometimes large rounds, as large as Silicon Valley deals) but they’re remembered for outcomes, not their valuations.

The lesson: A lasting startup is one that changes lives or industries. It might be through tech, but often through applying tech in a human context. Founders of impactful startups often talk about being motivated by a problem (“my grandmother had no banking” or “my village has no water”), not just by the idea of a billion-dollar exit.

Indian examples are still emerging. Among billion-dollar companies, Byju’s has changed learning (though it’s also been criticized for hype and accounts); Reliance Jio (an ambitious telecom venture) effectively created a telecom startup that cut data prices for India in half. On the social side, Qliko Mobility (bike-sharing in Lucknow) got millions riding bikes and reducing traffic. These stories show Indian startups can be relevant globally.

For our blog’s audience of founders and policymakers: these examples highlight that if your startup is making it significantly easier for people to do something important (drive to work, get a loan, learn, stay healthy), it’s on the path to real impact. That, ultimately, is what many argue is the true north of innovation.

Deep-Tech Startups in India: The Rocky Road

When Goyal pointed at semiconductors and space tech, he touched on India’s ambitions – but also its pain points. Deep-tech startups (chips, biotech, advanced manufacturing, AI hardware) face extra hurdles here:

• Funding Gap: As Mohandas Pai lamented, the capital for deep tech in India has been thin. While consumer startups pulled in $39B in 2021 (​techcrunch.com), very little of that goes into, say, building a semiconductor fab (billions in investment needed) or developing a new drug (often $100M+). Investors tend to prefer faster returns. By contrast, the Chinese government deliberately pumped money into chip design and fabrication (part of that $845B funding he cited)​(m.economictimes.com), and US VCs poured into biotech after seeing success stories.

• Regulatory & Bureaucratic Hurdles: The Reddit semiconductor founder’s rant is telling. Indian startups often complain of “red tape”. Even when a startup has a groundbreaking product, selling to the government (e.g. defense, railways, energy) can be a slog. Repeatedly, officials have asked startups to build first and then figure out the market. Without a guaranteed buyer (especially in capital-intensive sectors), startups can’t justify years of R&D. There are also import restrictions (you need licenses to bring in certain tech), and they may have to navigate multiple agencies.

• Lack of Ecosystem: Successful deep tech often needs an ecosystem: university research labs, prototyping facilities, manufacturing infrastructure, and a pool of specialized talent. India has great engineering schools, but fewer collaborative labs between industry and academia than, say, the US or Europe. For example, making chips requires access to fabs (expensive manufacturing plants) and specialized equipment – which India mostly has to import.

• Market Size: Some Indian startups target global markets by necessity. For instance, building a rocket to reach orbit – does India’s small private space market suffice? Usually not, so they rely on global contracts (ex: satellite launches). But competing with SpaceX or Arianespace is daunting. Many deep-tech founders tell us they need government as a first customer (common in US/Europe for defense R&D), but in India that pipeline is still developing.

A concrete example: consider building a semiconductor “fab” (chip factory) in India. It has been talked about for decades. Only recently has the government offered incentives (like a dedicated “Semicon Policy” with billions in subsidies). Even so, such a project requires that local startups and researchers know the process. Currently, most Indian chip design firms still rely on foreign manufacturing (TSMC in Taiwan, Samsung in Korea). The domestic demand for local chips (at sovereign-secure levels, like for military) is a selling point, but the ecosystem is nascent.

Another space: Biotech/Pharma startups. India has many labs and big pharma companies, but building a new drug startup (with clinical trials, approvals, etc.) is expensive and slow. Only a few have scaled out (like Serum Institute, though it’s now huge). Government policies are catching up (faster clinical approvals, biotech parks), but most deep R&D is still in legacy companies or universities.

Even in AI & software: India excels in services and software, but building the foundation chips or hardware to run AI (like specialized AI chips) is just starting. Compare to the US (Nvidia) or China (Huawei’s AI chips), and India has little homegrown competition, mainly thanks to the nascent startup scene Goyal mentioned. The hope is, over time, some of those semiconductor startups and research labs will catch up.

So yes, challenges abound. But it’s also encouraging to see signs of change: initiatives like Startup India and new technology missions, or funds specifically for innovation (e.g., the new $10B infusion into deep tech announced in Budgets). The question is whether founders have the support to take Goyal’s advice to heart – to really “aim for chips, not chips” – without being crushed by hurdles.

Finding the Middle Path: A Balanced Startup Culture

This controversy ultimately isn’t about scolding people into liking computers more than ice cream. It’s a provocation to reflect. A healthy startup culture can – and should – welcome both kinds of dreams:

• Celebrate the winners we have: Don’t diminish the value of startups like Zomato, Ola, BigBasket, BYJU’s or others that grew fast in consumer tech. They employed millions, paid taxes, and made entrepreneurship aspirational. These stories attracted global investment and showed that India could create billion-dollar companies. Founders of such startups become role models (for better or worse), and they teach important lessons in scaling, customer focus, and execution. Even if they weren’t what a professor might call “hard innovation,” they did innovate in logistics, marketing, UX, or business models. A future balanced ecosystem should not betray them; it should analyze what made them possible (pandemic-driven e-commerce, smartphone reach, etc.) and replicate those enablers in new areas.

• Encourage moonshots simultaneously: But equally, we should make it easier and more attractive to pursue the long haul stuff. This means policies like:

  • Government Procurement that Works: If the government wants to buy an Indian-designed chip or rocket engines, it should streamline the process. Clear timelines for trials and orders can give startups confidence. For instance, promising X number of buses will run on India-made EV batteries could jump-start production.

  • Public-Private Collaborations: Use schemes (like India’s recently launched National AI Mission, semiconductor incentives, or biotech missions) effectively by involving startups early. Governments can co-fund high-risk R&D (like aerospace firms do), because it’s often not purely profit-driven.

  • Education & Talent: Align university R&D with industry needs. Many entrepreneurs we hear from say their technologists get lured abroad for high-paying tech jobs, because there aren’t enough cutting-edge research jobs locally. If India invests more in R&D centers, labs, and advanced manufacturing jobs, grads might stay to build that next-generation product at home.

  • Venture Capital for Deep Tech: Encourage VCs to set aside funds for long-term projects. Maybe tax incentives or matching funds for VCs that invest in semiconductors, biotech, space tech, etc. Also patient capital like corporate R&D funds or government-backed grants. The U.S. model (NSF grants, DARPA funding) or the EU’s “Horizon Europe” grants are examples to learn from.

• Cultural Shift: The minister’s challenge can be taken as an invitation: let’s normalize ambition. If we make “it took 15 years to build that product and we still have 3 years to go” a celebrated narrative, that sends a powerful message. Alongside celebrating the 10-minute delivery apps, let’s tell stories of the 10-year lab projects (with happy endings!). Incubators and media can highlight “failed” efforts too, so we understand that we’re on the bleeding edge.

Key Point: Innovation is not zero-sum. One startup focusing on short-term gains does not deprive another of going big. By all means keep launching clever apps that turn small problems into quick businesses – they pay the bills and train talent. But also open up space (financial, policy, academic) for the rocket-scientists and biotech-engineers to fly.

In practice, this is tricky. Investors who made money on quick wins (consumer apps) may prefer to repeat that formula. But smart VCs are already considering new areas: we see funds forming for fintech 2.0, climate tech, edtech etc. The government, on its part, is publicly prioritizing initiatives like semiconductor fabs and electric vehicle incentive schemes – a sign it hears the message about deeper tech.

The startup community can also self-regulate in culture: mentor and fund clean-energy or agritech founders, not just clones of TikTok. And remember: the best startup ideas often come when you connect fields. For example, an agritech startup that uses AI (deep tech) to help farmers (social impact), or a health delivery platform that uses drones (combining logistics and aerospace).

Conclusion: Scooping the Best of Both Worlds

Piyush Goyal’s “ice cream or chips” remarks were undoubtedly brusque. They rubbed some people the wrong way. But at its heart, it was a provocation to think bigger: not to stop making ice cream (literal or figurative), but to wonder if some of India’s brightest minds could also be dreaming of building rockets, semiconductors, robots, cures and technologies that change the world.

The subsequent debate has shown that India’s startup ecosystem is vibrant and opinionated. Founders care about their work, and they’re quick to defend the impact it has (jobs, services, innovation). In turn, policymakers like Goyal care about India’s long-term development and global standing. Both perspectives are valid.

Going forward, a “balanced plate” of innovation seems wise. Keep nurturing the startups that meet people’s needs today – e-commerce portals, fintech apps, healthcare platforms – because these improve lives immediately and employ millions. But simultaneously, set aside resources and courage to pursue the moonshots. The next big Make in India might be in nanotech or quantum computing, not just smartphones.

For startup founders and students reading this: let Goyal’s comments be motivational, not discouraging. If you’re already building a food app, that’s great – but ask yourself, “What’s the bigger problem I could solve if I had more time or funding?” If you’re a deep-tech tinkerer, use this moment to highlight your vision: tell stories of how your project could change India’s trajectory. Seek mentors, pitch to mission-driven funds, and join with like-minded founders to tackle big challenges together.

For policymakers: the dialogue shows passion on all sides. Now it’s on regulators and funding bodies to listen carefully. Celebrate all entrepreneurship, but especially bolster the gears of big innovation. Streamline the red tape that small startups complain about, and consider the appeals of big ideas that need patient backing.

In the end, every great nation’s progress has been made by people who dreamed at both scales: the entrepreneur who saw a neighbor wanting a faster dinner (and built a delivery app) and the scientist who saw a satellite orbiting Earth (and wanted to launch one from India). We need both dishes on our innovation buffet. As one founder quipped: “It’s not about no ice cream – it’s about making sure we don’t miss the cake entirely!” By harnessing all our startup energy wisely, India can have its ice cream and bake the cake from which the next billion dreams can rise.

Sources: As reported in The Economic Times and TechCrunch, Piyush Goyal’s startup remarks at the April 2025 Startup Mahakumbh sparked a mix of agreement and pushback​m.economictimes.com​m.economictimes.com. Founders like Bhavish Aggarwal and Aman Gupta welcomed his push for bigger innovation​m.economictimes.com, while others like Zepto’s Aadit Palicha and Mohandas Pai highlighted real jobs created and funding gaps​m.economictimes.com. A semiconductor founder even posted on Reddit about the bureaucratic hurdles for deep-tech startups​economictimes.indiatimes.com​economictimes.indiatimes.com. Goyal later clarified he intended to inspire, aiming for India to be a “developed nation by 2047” driven by innovation​m.economictimes.com. Meanwhile, TechCrunch data shows Indian startups raised about $39B and reached ~81 unicorns in 2021​techcrunch.com (far behind the US and China, but rapidly growing). Our analysis builds on these insights to ask: how can India’s startup culture nurture both quick-growth consumer apps and long-term deep-tech breakthroughs?

Get in touch