India can build anything: Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala; Food Pharmer’s shift to food startup founder

The contradiction is simple but important: India has world-class engineering talent, yet remains heavily dependent on imported physical products. Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala says Indian engineers can build virtually any technology. However, the country does not consistently turn that knowledge into products made domestically. This gap weakens technological self-reliance and limits the economic value of Indian expertise.

He connects the problem to technical education. University courses often prioritise theory and overload students with curriculum. Students may learn how systems work without repeatedly designing, testing, repairing, and manufacturing them. Jhunjhunwala wants universities to cut half their theoretical coursework and make room for practical building, peer learning, and lifelong self-education.

The current reality is that established industries remain risk-averse, while young founders can move faster. He especially highlights entrepreneurs from Tier II, III, and IV cities. Supporting them could help India turn engineering ability into locally made products and stronger technological independence.

Technological self-reliance means having the capability to create and produce important physical technologies within India. It includes more than writing software, designing systems, or providing technical services. It requires engineers, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, and institutions to turn ideas into working products that can be tested, improved, and made at scale. This matters because imported products leave India dependent on external suppliers.

The article presents the contrast clearly. Indian engineers can build virtually any technology, but India still imports almost all its physical products. Practical education can close this gap. Students need experience building real systems, learning from peers, and continuing to teach themselves after formal courses end. That experience supports product development rather than only theoretical understanding.

Jhunjhunwala argues that young entrepreneurs are central to this shift, especially in smaller cities. If institutions support their risk-taking, India can convert engineering knowledge into domestic products, companies, and long-term technological independence.

India is responsible for educating about 247 million students. The scale is enormous, but speakers at TechSparks framed the central difficulty as structural rather than numerical. Traditional schooling remains rooted in nineteenth-century methods, even as society enters what they call the intelligence era. This mismatch affects how students learn and how prepared they are for modern work.

Leaders from Sri Chaitanya Group and Intel argued that technology should not be treated as an isolated school subject. Instead, technical tools should be part of daily learning. The goal is to reflect workplaces where technology and work are already merged. This approach changes technology from a separate lesson into a normal part of solving problems and creating things.

The current system therefore needs redesign, not just expansion. Integrating technology into learning could help students develop more relevant habits and skills. It also supports the wider push for practical education and stronger innovation across India.

Theory-heavy education can create a gap between knowing how technology works and being able to build it. Students may complete demanding courses without enough experience designing, testing, fixing, or improving physical products. India then has engineering talent, but fewer people with the practical confidence and product knowledge needed to move from an idea to manufacturing.

Prof. Ashok Jhunjhunwala gives the article’s clearest example. He says Indian engineers can build virtually any technology, while India still imports almost all its physical products. He proposes cutting half of theoretical coursework and replacing it with practical building, peer learning, and continuous self-education. These activities develop judgement that textbooks alone cannot provide.

Companies may consequently choose established imported products instead of taking risks on local alternatives. The article also says established industries remain risk-averse. More hands-on education, combined with support for young founders, could make domestic product creation more common and reduce this dependence.

Revant Himatsingka is a health activist and the person popularly known as Food Pharmer. He became known for exposing misleading claims made by major FMCG brands. His activism brought extreme legal and commercial backlash. Rather than remain only a critic, he moved into food production and founded Only What’s Needed, or OWN.

The move reflects a shift from pointing out problems to building an alternative. OWN aims to provide food products with clearer information and more transparent claims. Its packaging uses precise ingredient pie charts on the front. QR codes in major Indian languages let consumers check exact percentages without searching through hidden fine print. These choices make transparency part of the product itself.

The new role also increases his responsibility. Himatsingka says there is zero margin for error because any safety or labeling mistake will be magnified by his public profile. His company therefore rejects familiar marketing tactics and relies on disclosure instead of image-building.

OWN offers an alternative by making product information easier to see and verify. Conventional packaging can leave consumers searching through small print or broad claims. OWN instead puts precise ingredient pie charts on the front of its packages. This makes the composition of a product immediately visible rather than leaving it hidden in a long ingredient list.

The company adds QR codes in major Indian languages. Consumers can use them to see exact percentages without reading hidden fine print. OWN also discloses its supply chain openly. Together, these mechanisms shift trust from branding and advertising toward accessible evidence about ingredients and sourcing.

This approach differs from conventional food marketing in several deliberate ways. Himatsingka avoids green-washed packaging, keeps his face off the box, runs no discount promotions, and relies on disclosures rather than ad spending. The model also carries risk: safety or labeling mistakes will be magnified because of his public profile.

These forces form a chain. Practical education gives students experience creating real products instead of only studying theory. Risk-taking founders use that ability to solve problems and start companies. Venture capital provides money for experimentation, hiring, and growth. Public markets can then give successful companies access to larger pools of capital and show other founders that major outcomes are possible.

The article links these stages through several examples. Jhunjhunwala calls for practical learning and support for young entrepreneurs, especially in Tier II, III, and IV cities. Peak XV Managing Director Mohit Bhatnagar says companies such as Zomato and growing startup acceptance in India’s public markets have changed expectations. Founders now aspire to build $50 billion or $100 billion companies.

This ambition also changes investor behaviour. Bhatnagar says venture firms such as Peak XV Partners are taking bigger risks. If education produces capable builders and finance supports them, India can create products and large companies rather than primarily importing finished goods.