Pride is not proof!

The recent controversy involving Deepinder Goyal’s Temple device and the questions raised by doctors got me thinking about something that deserves a much wider discussion. As the debate unfolded, several entrepreneurs and investors came out in support of Deepinder, celebrating his ambition to build something innovative in India. Some argued that we should encourage Indian entrepreneurs who are taking risks rather than pull them down. Deepinder himself eventually said he didn’t want nationalist support. Fair enough. But why does nationality become part of the argument in the first place?

I’m immensely proud of Indian entrepreneurs who are building world-class businesses. We need more people with the courage to experiment, invest in new ideas and take Indian innovation to global markets. But I find it strange that questioning a product or asking for evidence can suddenly be interpreted as discouraging Indian entrepreneurship. Since when did asking legitimate questions become an act of disloyalty?

We seem to be developing this attitude that anyone attempting something ambitious deserves applause simply for trying. I don’t agree. Taking risks is admirable, but consumers have every right to question what they’re being asked to buy. Investors can celebrate an entrepreneur’s vision, but their confidence doesn’t establish whether a product actually works. And being successful in one business doesn’t automatically make every subsequent idea brilliant.

I say this as someone who has spent years building the Akancha Srivastava Foundation from scratch into a large, nationwide cyber safety initiative. There were enormous challenges and difficult years. But I never expected institutions, government bodies or individuals to support our work simply because I was an Indian building something in India. We had to demonstrate value, deliver results and earn people’s trust. Being Indian is a matter of pride for me, but it has never been my reason for expecting anyone’s support.

What bothers me even more is how quickly some people rush to defend a prominent founder without adequately examining the questions being asked. If a doctor questions a claim connected to human physiology, why should that be seen as an attack on innovation? If a customer questions pricing, performance or reliability, why should they be made to feel they don’t appreciate the effort behind the product? Entrepreneurs put their money, time and reputations on the line. I understand that very well. But those investments are their decisions. They don’t create an obligation for the public to believe everything they say.

There’s also a bigger problem with this kind of unconditional support. It discourages healthy criticism and can create an environment where founders become surrounded by people who tell them how extraordinary their ideas are. That is dangerous for any business. Some of the most valuable feedback I’ve received has come from people who challenged my approach, questioned my assumptions or told me something wasn’t working. It wasn’t always pleasant, but it helped me improve. Why should celebrated entrepreneurs be treated any differently?

I would love to see more Indian companies become global leaders. I would love to see Indian research, technology and products earn worldwide recognition. And I will happily celebrate their success. But I want that recognition to come from what they have actually achieved. Our pride in Indian entrepreneurship should never become an excuse to lower our expectations. If we genuinely believe Indian entrepreneurs can compete with the best in the world, we should be willing to judge them by exactly the same standards.