Daybreak - Why venture capitalist Archana Jahagirdar believes the 'crazy genius founder' is a myth

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

What happens when a woman writes the cheques in venture capital? In India fewer than 5% of VC partners are women and Archana Jahagirdar, founder of Rukam Capital, is part of that rare group. Since 2019, she has backed Sleepy Owl, Burger Singh, Pilgrim and Beco—bets that reveal how India’s middle class eats, shops and aspires. In this episode Archana talks to host Snigdha Sharma about why copying Silicon Valley often fails here, how VCs shape culture, what she looks for in founders, and why consumer trust can be the ultimate advantage. Tune inDaybreak is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India’s first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Hi, this is Rohan Dharma Kumar. If you've heard any of the Ken's podcasts, you've probably heard me, my interruptions, my analogies, and my contrarian takes on most topics. And you might rightly be wondering why am I interrupting this episode too. It's for a special announcement. For the last few months, I and Sita Raman Ganeshan, my colleague and the Ken's deputy editor, have been working on an ambitious new podcast. It's called Intermission.

We want to tell the secret sauce stories of India's greatest companies. Stories of how they were born, how they fought to survive, how they build their organizations and culture, how they manage to innovate and thrive over decades, and most importantly, how they're poised today. To do that, Sita and I have been reading books, poring over reports, going through financial statements, digging up archives, and talking to dozens of people. And if that wasn't enough, we also decided to throw in video into the mix. Yes, you heard that right. Intermission has also had to find its footing in the world of multi-camera shoots in professional studios, laborious editing and extensive post-production.

Sita and I are still reeling from the intensity of our first studio recording. Intermission launches on March 23rd. To get alert, as soon as we release our first studio. episode, please follow intermission on Spotify and Apple Podcast or subscribe to the Ken's YouTube channel. You can find all of the links at the ken.com slash I am. With that, back to your episode. What happens when a woman is the one writing the checks in venture capital? In India, where less than 5% of VC partners are women, that is still a rare question. But it is exactly the one that Archanajajadar has been answering since she founded Rukham Capital back in 2019.

As the founder, she is a part of the tiny fraction of women who decides which brands and which visions of India's future get funded. In the last five, six years, her firm has backed companies like Sleepy Owl, Berger Singh, Pilgrim and Biko. Each of these bets tells a story about how India's middle class eats, shops and dreams bigger. So, in today's episode, we talk about the power of writing checks, why copying Silicon Valley does not always work in India, and what changes when more women sit at the decision-making table? Archanah is going to tell us all about what she thinks about founders, culture and risk,

and why building trust may be the ultimate differentiator for Indian startups. Hi, Archana, welcome to Daybreak and thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. I'm quite excited about this conversation. Likewise, Archana, super excited to be talking about. to you. I would like to start with this story, right? That's become a part of startup folklore almost. It is about Masayoshi Son, soft banks Masayoshi Son, and Adam Newman from WeWork. And this is right after he gave WeWork more than $4 billion of funding. And Newman is in Tokyo and he asks him this question. He says, in a fight between a smart guy and a crazy guy, who's the one who wins? And

Newman replies, of course, it's the crazy guy who wins. And then Masayoshi Shison tells him, but you're not crazy enough. Now, I'm sure you've heard this story like a hundred times. Hards, of course, yeah. Right. You know, I brought it up because it really captures this archetype of the founder that venture capital has been celebrating for a long time, right? Usually male, a little unhinged, larger than life personality.

Do you think Indian venture capital still glorifies this kind of a founder? So I would say that the startup, Indian startup ecosystem has to find its own voice. We have borrowed heavily from the American sort of, you know, narrative of this unhinged founder who's, you know, this visionary who's walking this very lonely path and, you know, only he sort of understands it till, of course, he builds this billion dollar business. So it's a ecosystem issue. It's not just the VC portrayal or VC sort of narrative, I would say. And the reason for that is that I think for a long time,

we have been, you know, a lot in love with what happened in the West. Like, we want a Western degree. We want, you know, that Western stamp of approval is a big part of how we have thought about until now. And which also, therefore, you know, we want to back this. so-called unhinged sort of personality. And some founders have, you know, sort of play-acted to get that VC interest and especially when it has been these Western VCs

who are operating in India. So I think as India and domestic capital sort of comes into its own, I think he'll find our own voice and our own narrative as to what should work and what shouldn't. Right. So then if this kind of madness is overrated in founders, what would be the other important attributes in a founder according to you? I think there's certain underlying characteristics that are important,

which is a founder actually has to be more patient than mad. And patience and madness sometimes can be two size of the same coin in the sense that when the data, the environment is loaded against you, then you need a certain kind of madness to still continue to still believe in your idea, you know, in the face of what looks like reality. But also, along with patients, you need incredible amount of focus and hard work, which again, maybe one, you know, if one was to put it succinctly, it may be called madness, it may be called, you know, because it does require incredible amount of hard work.

in the face of great obstacles and sort of, you know, in what looks like a very difficult journey and a difficult dream to fulfill. So I think that's really, and I think nuance is very important. I think a lot of the conversation that we have today or the borrowed sort of imagery words, scenarios that we use today, you know, there isn't enough nuance. And hopefully, and gender agnostic over here, hopefully I'm. bringing in a little bit of nuance to this whole conversation and this whole, you know, because if you bring that nuance in, then it begins to make a little bit more sense. Right, right. I totally get where you're coming from, Archana, but also what I really wanted to find out is if,

you know, women founders, if they played this kind of crazy genius founder role, would they be treated the same way as their male counterparts? Oh, for sure. I think that's a no-brainer to answer. First of all, it's very hard for a woman to play that archetype anyway. Because, you know, first of all, I think very few women are able to fully express their personalities as it is. Because we are expected to be nice and polite and, you know, in gender we are not meant to be aggressive or from, you know, again, how society perceives women. So I think that is anyway imposed

And I'm not sure I've ever seen Women Founders up until large In my interactions with Women Founders I don't think I've found Indian Women Founders who are trying to play or be part of that narrative To be quite honest Right. Interesting.

Okay, Arjuna, I want to dig a little deeper into power play and perspective. For an outsider, it does seem like, you know, founders are the ones who dominate the startup narrative, right? It is their faces on magazine covers. They are the ones who are being idolized. But actually, the real power sits with VCs, no? Because in the end, you're the one who's deciding which stories are getting written.

And that is a massive responsibility. So my question is, as the one who's writing the checks, what do you make of this sort of responsibility? Yeah, yeah. There's no two ways about it. I think, you know, VC is really a piece. people's business and it's a, it's really a platform. I think most people see it as an asymmetry of power between founder and investor. But really, we have, you know, a two-sided fiduciary

responsibility. I mean, we have fiduciary responsibility to our LPs and, of course, fiduciary responsibility to the founders that we invest behind. And I do think that VCs have the power to write and tell the stories because I think great founders will find their way to tell us. their stories and they will build those businesses whether they get a risk capital. And in a sense, you know, a great startup is like a cat with nine lives. So even, yeah, it's a fact because let's say you don't get capital at an early stage, you know, that doesn't mean that the story is over for you. I mean, you may sort of have to struggle a lot longer and a lot harder,

but it by no means means that, you know, their fate is sealed. So I think great founders write their own stories and I think a VC is incidental to that story sometimes. In other cases where we do end up writing the Jets, I think the story is still, I think the startup founders write it and I think there is a symbiotic relationship. I would not say that it's a completely one-sided or an asymmetric sort of power equation

between founders and investors because we exist because of founders and founders need us at different stages in different ways, you know, but the job of a great founder is to find solutions to every problem including capital. Got it. Okay, on a more practical level, like say, for example, when you're meeting a founder,

what are the things that you look for that are not in the pitch deck or things that are beyond the pitch deck? So actually, I don't look at a pitch deck at all. And it's not to say that I'm lazy or I don't have a time to look at a pitch deck, but it's deliberate. Because a founder should be able to talk about any aspect of the business, not just something that has been pre-determined and pre-decided to put on a slide. If a founder is unable to talk about their business beyond what is on their slides,

it worries me a lot. A founder should be able to breathe, eat, sleep, talk, you know, about every part of the business. And when I say that, what I do, what I'm not saying is that they have to answer every question correctly. It's not a, it's not a multiple, you know, it's not a competitive exam where you have to sort of pass with 60% or whatever the past rate is. It's more about how much have you thought about the problem. we are trying to solve the product that you're built or building and your go-to-market strategy. You know, it can't be something that somebody else has fed you, which unfortunately does

happen in the startup ecosystem. You will have some advisor, somebody, you know, trying to tell you, okay, do it this way and you will get your investment. So what and what I look for is the founder's ability to continue in absence of funding because we are still a pretty capital. scarce country when it comes to risk capital. So not every founder's going to get capital exactly the time that they need it. So a founder's ability to problem solve is a founder's greatest, I would say greatest

attribute that I look for. Okay. So let's take the example of BICO, right? One of the companies that Rukum Capital has invested in. For listeners, BCO is an eco-friendly home and personal care company. Archana, what was it about the company that stood out to you? So I have a little bit of a contrarian way of thinking. So I try not to follow trends madly.

And the equal for me was that sort of contrarian bet. So they were building in the home care category which was not trending or it was not, every investor was not chasing that category at that point. So that was one. And I thought that it was a no-brainer that as people became more. conscious, you know, about many other things in their homes, this would be something that they would want to re-look at and how, you know, they use everyday, you know, sort of products in their home. Now, the other problem with this category is that if you don't start building a brand

quickly, it can very easily be commoditized and therefore you don't get the, you know, the sort of brand trust and the brand love, which allows you to charge a brand. So what the BECO founders, I think, did very, very smartly. I think they moved very quickly and they understood that they had to start the brand sort of conversation, not just performance marketing, which was, which I think was a big problem. And it's still, I find a big problem in the overall consumer startup ecosystem. Founders spent too much time thinking about performance marketing in the beginning and not enough about brand from day one.

And these founders had started thinking about brand very, very early, even though they raised a very small round at that point. So they understood that. Second is they also understood that despite the whole sustainability, better for use, sort of products that they were building, the consumers' appetite to pay too much extra from what they were already paying, you know, may not sort of work. So they didn't overpriced themselves.

And I think that was very, very important. And the third thing they understood, of course, is, you know, new product development and what categories to go after. very early on. So they understood the wedge through which they could get into homes. So garbage bags may seem like such a commoditized space and not a worthy of a startup too. But it was an easy access into a household's grocery list, right? There isn't too much friction to change your garbage bag vendor.

And if it's better for you, it becomes easier. And then you get to the higher value sort of products where the consumer may want efficacy and trust much before they're willing to to sort of change their brands or the existing products that they're using. So I think this understanding and of course is hunger to scale sustainably, but at the same time

of course, you know, understanding that if you don't own your space, somebody else, including the legacy guys, can come in and own it. And those were and those attributes they exhibited very early on in our association. So, and that's what

led us to back them. You know, it's very interesting what you said about, you know, getting access into a household's grocery list because that is kind of exactly how it worked for me. So I use Biko's products too. And I started with the toilet paper because it said that the paper was unbleached, right? And I liked it. Then I tried their laundry detergent. I liked that too. And then slowly I realized I started using a lot of more products from their range.

So, yeah, that makes sense. So that's the whole, you've got to understand your consumer psyche. So again, you know, a good founder is somebody who understands a human condition more than actually, you know, building the perfect product. Because it's what will get somebody to notice you, buy you, keep you in your, you know, whatever shopping list and with great frequency. Yeah, for sure. And actually, that brings me to another thing that I really find fascinating and I've been. wanting to ask you, you know how venture capital, it doesn't just shape companies, right? It's also kind of shaping culture in the sense that, you know, what we eat, what we drink, what we buy.

So do you think investing is as much of a cultural act as a financial one? I think that's a very good and interesting question and nobody's asked me that question before. Yes, I think it is an act of shift in culture. I think, you know, our jobs as an investor is to spot the change that is the cultural shift that is happening. We don't actually shift cultures. Culture is already shifting and our job is to spot that change before it becomes completely mainstream, right? In a sense, we are betting on the future, the immediate future to some extent, I would say. So, yeah, we do play a role there.

And I think that's actually where this business is much more important than just being a sort of a financial, you know, product. Because if these early companies were not to get the capital and therefore wouldn't exist, I think a lot of how we live and consume today would look a bit different. You know, earlier, Arjuna, you mentioned how you consider yourself to be a bit of a contrarian in terms of treacherine. rents, right? Now, one of the

biggest critiques of venture capital right now is that a lot of venture money in India today is just chasing the same trendy ideas, food delivery, quick commerce, D2C brands. You know, instead of actually funding innovation that might solve

bigger public good related problems, right? Do you think this is a fair critique? And also, when you're evaluating a company, how do you tell if it is just a short-lived trend or it is something that has staying power. I think it's important to understand

what does venture, what is it that venture capital can do and cannot do? So venture capital by the very nature of how it's structured, you know, it's tenure-based. It's not evergreen capital, right? So tenure couldn't be anywhere from 5 to 10 years. I mean, that's

typically, so in the US you can run a 5-year fund in India that's not practical because we are a much more shallow market compared to the US. So if you look at it very, very logically and dispassionately, like in 10 years where I have to raise my capital, deploy the capital, and then of course exit. So you're really looking at maybe less than a seven-year window to be able to do all of that. Now, great innovation doesn't happen in 7 to 10 years. Let's also be quite honest about it. If you look at R&D spends of our budget,

big technology companies. I mean, they're minuscule compared to the R&D spends of their counterparts in the U.S. or China. So great, real innovation requires two, three things. It requires incredible amount of capital, which can be written off. It's not a capital that has to have a return on it, right? So that means it has to be off a balance sheet. It cannot be out of risk capital. second is sometimes it requires policy change or often it requires policy change not sometimes so if you look at EVs for example now you look at how many things have to come together so policy has to come together which is you know in most countries there are tax breaks including in our country to buying a EV now that's a policy level piece right then there has to be some policy initiative to for a EV company to

to be able to bring in, you know, all the competence and parts, including, let's say, the rare part to the whole battery tech. So, again, that's a policy level and almost a geopolitical sort of piece. It's not something a startup or a VC can solve for. And then there's the entire infrastructure around it, which is charging. Now, you look at it logically, you tell me which VC and what kind of capital would it require to do all of these things. Fair. Yeah, I agree with you. Even the rare earth crisis and India's relations with China is a good example of this, right? Or EV production in July almost came to a standstill because of this. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. So I want to ask you about something else that you keep bringing up in a lot of your interviews, which is the issue of consumer trust, right? And it is something that is very hard to crack, especially in a country like India. Can you unpack this for us? And how do you look at? And how do you look at? And how do you look at? And how do you?

think? How do you know as a VC whether a founder can really own consumer trust? It goes back to what I said that I don't look at a deck and I prefer to have a conversation with a founder because if a founder has spent time thinking about it, you know, and it, of course, it will be staged because, you know, you do certain things at a particular stage of when you're building a company ground up and it may not happen. Or it, you know, it will be staged. It may not be in full public view from day one, but there are certain things that a founder has to do from day one, literally when they're designing and thinking about the product

that they're going to bring to the market. And that comes through the conversation. So, I mean, one of the examples that we discussed was VECO. And like I said, VECO worked on the brand promise from very early on. And I do think it's important that a founder works on a brand promise. What does a brand stand for? And that's not a lot of founders, you know, consumer founders, India make the mistake of thinking that a functional attribute of their product is what will

lead to brand trust. Whereas it's the emotional connect a brand has with the consumer that is brand trust. It's not the functional attribute. The more you have to talk about the functionality of your product or the price of your product, you're losing the brand trust. Then it's much more a transactional transaction between the consumer and the product. You know, I'd gone to go out to some person's house, these people I didn't know. and they had B-Eco tissue paper and they say,

oh, we love the product. So when you get that natural feedback from consumers accidentally, not because you were looking out for that kind of input of feedback, you know that there's a stickiness that the product has already created. And with all its imperfection, so all startups are imperfect, right? I mean, there are many things that are not perfectly polished. It's not the best, let's say, packaging or they've not, of course, cracked all the distribution points where your consumer can possibly be.

So within your imperfections, when a consumer wants to still be with you and pay you the price that you're asking, you're not a discount-led brand. That means you build a brand. But if you are constantly running Bogo, you're constantly on a 30, 40% of, and that is what is driving your sort of, you know, sales numbers, then you're not a brand. Yeah, it reminds me of all these D2C beauty brands, right, that have been mushrooming in the last couple of years. And now I see a lot of them, especially on Instagram,

offering insane discounts like buy one, get three free or something. Why do you think this is happening? Is it the same reason? So I think all founders, you know, relies how difficult it is to continue to get the consumer to keep coming back. I think one of the, you know, litmus test is when this happens, right? I mean, it's reasonably easy when you're a digital first brand to get to that one-corro monthly run rate. I mean, reasonably, I would not call it easy, but reasonably.

Because the alga is in your favor at that point to some extent. But when the rubber really hits the road is when you need them to keep coming back, buying at a certain periodicity depending on what the product and the category is and that's when you realize that they're not coming back. Now, it could be for a variety of reasons. The product didn't have efficacy or the product just didn't appeal to the consumer,

which can happen even for a big sort of company and a big brand. But because there are many more levers to keep reaching the same consumer again at a cheaper price, they can still afford that, but a startup can't afford, you know, the consumer not returning

with reasonable frequency and periodicity. And then it looks like a easy and a lot of founders saying it's a short-term thing, oh, I'll run this Bogo offer, I'll run this discount, and then it'll be fine,

and then, you know, the consumer will try it and then they'll come back full price. But number one rule of consumer behavior is anything that is deeply discussed, the consumer will never come back and pay a full price for it. So you've got to find, and that's the point I'm making, the difference between a commodity or a product versus a brand is this,

that you should be able to charge whatever price you deem fit as a business. And Apple is one of the greatest examples of that. I mean, it's not the most tech forward company, you know, but yet people who swear by Apple will pay whatever price Apple offers, its consumers. Right. Okay. Arjuna, you know, when you look at your portfolio,

there is Berger Singh, there is Sleepy Owl, there's Beko. What do you think it says about India's middle class and its aspirations as of now? I think the aspirations are alive and kicking and I think it's a good thing. I think, you know, we as a country have seen a shift from always saving for a rainy day to living in the year and now. and that shows the maturing of the economy. In mature economies, you don't always fear the future. So I think it's a overall positive.

If a country is fearful of the future all the time, that means that the economy is not strong. The fact that especially the millennials and genies are willing to live paycheck to paycheck shows the strength of how they perceive their financial future. and that is a very, very positive indicator for any country. Yeah, makes sense. I also wanted to ask you about your latest venture, Rukum Sittara, right,

that's investing in consumer-facing companies that are using AI, deep tech, or other enabling technologies that power or transform their business. The past two years have been dominated by the AI frenzy globally. In India also, right now, we're seeing a flood of startups, rebranding themselves, as AI companies, whether or not the tech actually runs deep into their business. How do you separate genuine innovation from the noise? And what is it that gives you conviction that, you know, this is the right moment for India to make big bets on deep tech,

especially given the fact that, you know, we've not really seen a big breakout in AI as such here. So you've got to be a little ahead of the curve. Because if you're not, then you are likely to, get left me. Now, yes, there is, of course, use of generative AI as in every deck. And I think founders, yeah, founders try and put that in to grab an investor's attention because

I mean, again, it's their way of trying whatever they can to get attention. Because it is highly competitive to be able to raise risk capital in India. Having said that, I think the way we look at generative AI or deep tech is of course we have to, so we create a lot of internal reports, you know, and to try and understand different subjects and different sort of categories. Now, within that, the best way to learn about anything new is by, in a sense, almost by doing it, which in an investor's case is that you talk to as many founders

and go to as many places where you can learn about it. of course technology sometimes can move fast as it is doing at this moment so you will have hits and misses and I think that is one of the biggest challenges now we saw this during the dot com and the internet boom as well there were many many misses and of course there were hits as well so I think as an investor you've got to have a bullshit filter and you know the point I was making earlier about that I like to have a conversation because, you know, people reveal themselves both positively and negatively when you take them away from our script.

The more you dig deeper, you know, about the product, about technology, you know, you can tell what somebody is sort of talking by road as opposed to where they genuinely understand technology. I think that is the job of any good investor because we can't be experts in everything, especially because like I said, we are betting a little bit on the future. So there is going to be a little bit of fraud.

There is going to be a little bit of, you know, pretenders who will try and come and claim to be the experts in it. And there's not enough time to be an expert in every subject. And I think a lot of investors mislead by saying, oh, I'm an expert in X and Y. And it's surprising because if that whole subject is only very nascent, how can you be an expert in it, right? So you have to be able to prod and poke enough to get the founder to a point

where the founder really showcases himself or herself as somebody who understands the technology part of it enough. Because if the founder is using a lot of jargon and is trying to, you know, explain things in a superficial manner. And I'm saying it's very similar to the job that you do as well, right? I mean, when you are having a conversation on different subjects, it's impossible for anyone to be an expert on every subject, right? But it's about it's the ability to sort of go a little bit more deeper

to just try and understand whether the person really knows what they're talking about or they're just trying to impress with a lot of jargon. So another thing that I try and avoid with founders and I request them to not use any jargon when they're talking about their product and how they're building and what is the problem statement because jargon is a good way to hide behind

and you try and look far more intelligent than you are just because you know words of jargon. Okay, so Archanal now I have a slightly frivolous question for you. Is there any company that you did not bet on that you now sort of regret passing on? So, you know, our ecosystem is not that sort of mature where I could, I can say that I passed on something and it's become such a huge success that I now regretted. What I do regret is that I, you know, didn't have that kind of capital to back you commerce because I really think it's, it's a great innovation for our times and for our country.

And I'm truly, truly fascinated by how that has got built out. I wasn't investing when urban companies started. I would have liked to have. So these are not companies I missed. I just wasn't in the game at that time. And I think as an investor to have an portfolio and to have repaired, I think the cycle has to play out fully.

We're still, the cycle hasn't played out itself yet. Fair. Okay. Archana, my last question for you. I know you said that you are gender agnostic and I totally get that. You want to be seen as a successful professional irrespective of your gender.

But, you know, considering how only 5% of VCs in India are women, I do feel like looking at the gender angle is important. It's important to talk about the experience of gender, right? So as somebody who is one of the few women that's a part of this 5% who is writing the checks for startups, what is that one shift that you hope to see in the kind of companies that are built and grow in India if more women held this seat?

See, a lot of investing does happen because of the old boys club. So, you know, the men do, you know, hang out together. and women are excluded out of those informal sort of groups, right? So some of the FOMO that you're talking about or that momentum investing that is happening in India, which I think is unfortunate because then a lot of deserving founders were not part of that momentum investing, little charm circle, get deprived of risk capital.

So I think if there were more women who enter and become GPs and become investors. I mean, my hope is that women will not mirror the way men are investing in India and have independent point of view and have the ability to stick to their conviction and stick to their guns a lot more. And that will broaden the pool of risk capital being available for far more deserving sort of founders than it is right now. So a lot of the gatekeeping happens because when investors hunt in packs, so to speak,

and then you leave out those who are not part of, let's say, that IDI-I-M sort of charm circle or the Ivy League charm circle, which by, again, their very nature and how society is organized, you know, it will be the men who will go to the Ivy League and to the IITs and IMs. so therefore it also gets you know segregated on the basis of gender you know to some extent so i do think that look i think i think opportunity and access should be equal for both genders and i do believe that by not by that equality not being there there is you know i think different ways of looking at businesses is compromised.

So I'm not negating the gender conversation like I said. It is an old boys club. And more women should also become LPs, you know, and which again means a transfer of wealth you know, as opposed to wealth getting transferred

from the patriarch to the male heir. It needs to be passed on to women airs as well. So I do think that it's important that women become LPs and not just GPs and when those shifts do

happen, you know, this perception that men are better with money has to change. Absolutely. And that is such a great note to end this interview on. Thank you so much, Archina, for giving us time and joining us. I think

I had a lot of fun talking to you and it's always fun when there are two women on a podcast, on both sides of the mic. Yes. Absolutely. Very enjoyable. Thank you very much. Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of the Ken, India's first subscriber-focused business news platform. What you're listening to is just a small sample of a subscriber-only offerings and a full subscription offers daily, long-form feature stories, newsletters and a whole bunch of premium podcasts.

To subscribe, head to the ken.com and click on the red subscribe button on the top of the website. Today's episode was hosted and produced by my colleague, Snitha Sharma, and edited. by Rajiv Sien.