Tandon's claim is that India's foreign corporate accelerators failed for a reason nobody says out loud: most were launched in the 2012-13 startup frenzy to attract talent and generate headlines, without the dedicated budgets, internal processes or innovation culture to deploy anything they found. He then splits the foreign players in two — global corporates that actually have Indian consumers, like Google, Amazon, Honeywell and Intel, which do invest and acquire here, and capability centres, which cannot. With no local consumer, a GCC outsources insight to a consumer-insights team already skewed towards top line and bottom line, when the first lens should be the consumer's and not the business's; and even when it does find something worth buying, headquarters asks why an Indian asset shouldn't cost a tenth as much. He calls that perception ridiculous, and points at Zoho. What an Indian conglomerate fixes, on his account, is exactly those three things: decisions taken where the head office is, no glass ceiling by ethnicity, colour or location, and a dealership close enough to walk to. Around the argument sit his other positions — the enabler as a 'clog', part cog and part lightning rod; a syndicate built on three capitals rather than one; and an unfashionable line on burn, which he insists no serious investor ever advised. Cut the business-class flight to CES and seven of your ten conferences, he says — not your people.
Worth your time if you are
Corporate innovation leads inside Indian capability centres
Founders pitching into a corporate accelerator
First-time angels assembling a syndicate
Operators told to cut burn without cutting headcount
India leaders arguing for a seat at the global table