In the previous column we discussed how the people best equipped to identify promising deep-tech startups are often also connected to the small ecosystem, leading to an expertise-proximity dilemma. India must accept this reality and move ahead while ensuring transparency and accountability.First, we must stop evaluating deep-tech startups like conventional startups. An e-commerce or SaaS company can show customers, revenues, unit economics, annual run rates, repeat subscriptions and gross margins within a couple of years. However, a semiconductor, quantum computing, biotech or space startup may spend years developing technology before meaningful revenues come in. A space startup cannot launch a rocket quickly just because the investor presentation is a few weeks away.Thankfully, the Indian government understands this. The ₹1-lakh-crore ‘Research, Development and Innovation’ scheme is designed to finance high-risk, high-impact innovation, including deep-tech, over six years. The Technology Development Board’s current window can provide collateral-free loans with tenures extending up to 15 years. Deep-tech needs patient capital. But patient capital cannot become unquestioning capital. This is where guardrails are important.Any expert evaluating a startup should disclose previous investments, advisory roles, mentorships, board positions or other material relationships with applicants. Such disclosures should not automatically disqualify them from serving on panels. If the relationship is significant, however, recusal should be compulsory. For large investments, India could bring in independent and even international experts. Evaluation panels should rotate periodically to avert networks of influence.Another option is to separate technical evaluation from investment approval. Scientists and domain experts can evaluate the technology, and investment professionals can assess whether the team, capital requirement and commercial opportunity make sense. A detailed process sheet must be prepared for every investment and the decisions documented. The objective should be to create an audit trail without creating a bureaucratic obstacle course.India must also understand that many deep-tech investments will fail. Safe investments rarely produce breakthrough technologies. Failure cannot automatically mean that the original decision was bad. These startups are moonshots and, by their very nature, high-risk, potentially high-reward bets.The good news is that capital flows are increasing. Startup India Fund of Funds 2.0 has another ₹10,000-crore corpus with deep-tech among its focus areas. But capital alone cannot create the next generation of tech champions.We need patience to allow scientists to experiment, fail, and try again; experts participating without fearing that every professional connection will be viewed with suspicion; and governance strong enough to ensure that genuine conflicts cannot hide behind the excuse of a small ecosystem.India must be prepared to tolerate failure as an important step towards producing deep-tech winners. What it cannot tolerate is failure of process.(The writer is a serial entrepreneur and best-selling author of the book ‘Failing to Succeed’; posts on X @vaitheek)Published on August 31, 2026