Impact” is a Rich Man’s Hobby: Why Bharat Founders Must Obsess Over Profit First

The “Purpose” Virus Has Reached Bharat

Open any startup magazine today, and you will see lists like “11 Startups Saving the Planet” or “Founders putting Purpose over Profit.” It is a beautiful narrative. It makes for great Instagram reels. It attracts “Impact Investors” and grant committees.

But if you are a founder in a Tier 2 town—struggling to pay salaries, fighting for working capital, and negotiating with suppliers—this narrative is not just useless; it is dangerous.

The idea that “Profits are not enough” is a luxury belief imported from Silicon Valley and European boardrooms. It is easy to talk about “saving the world” when you have $100 Million in the bank. But for the bootstrapper in Bolangir or the SME owner in Surat, Profit isn’t just a metric. Profit is oxygen.

In this contrarian edition of Webverbal Pulse, we strip away the ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) jargon and tell you the uncomfortable truth: The most impactful thing you can do for India is to make a boatload of money.

1. The “Double Bottom Line” is a Lie for Early Stage

We are told to chase a “Double Bottom Line”—financial returns AND social impact. It sounds noble. It is also a recipe for schizophrenia.

The Contrarian Reality: You cannot serve two masters. When you try to optimize for “Social Good” and “Revenue” simultaneously in the early stages, you end up doing neither well.

• Your product becomes too expensive for the poor (because you need margins).
• Your product becomes too inferior for the rich (because you are focused on “mission”).

The Indian Context: Look at the most “impactful” companies in India.

• Jio: Did they start as a charity to “connect the unconnected”? No. They built a ruthless monopoly to make massive profits. The side effect was connecting 500 million Indians.
• Amul: It’s a cooperative, but it operates with ruthless commercial efficiency. If Amul didn’t make a profit, 3.6 million farmers would starve.
• The Lesson: Focus on the First Bottom Line (Profit). If your product is good and affordable, the “Impact” will happen automatically as a byproduct of scale.

2. A “Dead” Startup Has Zero Impact

The startup graveyard is full of “Social Enterprises” that had great mission statements but terrible unit economics. They burned grant money, won awards, gave TED talks, and then shut down when the funding dried up.

The “Dhanda” Perspective: Compare that “Impact Startup” to a boring local factory making plastic pipes in a small town.

• The factory owner doesn’t have a “Vision Statement.”
• He is “greedy” for profit.
• But: He employs 50 people. He pays them every month. Those 50 families eat because he makes a profit.

The Verdict: Sustainability doesn’t mean “Green Energy.” It means Financial Self-Sufficiency. A profitable Kirana store does more for the Indian economy than a loss-making NGO-style startup that lives on investor mercy.

• The Rule: You can’t save the planet if you can’t pay your server bills.

3. “Impact” is Often Just Marketing for Grants

Let’s be honest. A lot of the “Impact Startup” wave in India is driven by the availability of CSR Funds and Grants. Founders are twisting their business models to fit the “Social Impact” criteria just to unlock free money.

The Trap: When you build for a Grant Committee, you stop building for the Customer.

• You start measuring “Lives Touched” (a vanity metric) instead of “Revenue Collected” (a reality metric).
• You become a “Project,” not a “Business.”

The Pivot: Stop pitching your “sob story.” Pitch your value. If your product helps a farmer increase his yield, don’t sell it as “Empowering Rural India.” Sell it as “Make 20% More Money.” The farmer doesn’t want your pity. He wants your product to work.

4. The “Unsexy” Problems are the Real Goldmines

The “Impact” crowd loves sexy topics: Clean Tech, EdTech for the poor, Artisan marketplaces. But real impact lies in the unsexy, boring, profitable problems.

• Waste Management Logistics: Not saving turtles, but efficiently moving garbage.
• Cold Chain Warehousing: Not “ending hunger,” but stopping tomatoes from rotting.
• Blue Collar Staffing: Not “upskilling,” but getting a security guard a gig.

These businesses make money. And because they make money, they scale. And because they scale, they actually solve the problem.

5. The “Robin Hood” Model: Make Money Then Do Good

Bill Gates didn’t start the Gates Foundation in his 20s. He built a ruthlessly monopolistic software empire first. Tata Sons gives away billions because TCS makes billions.

The Contrarian Advice: Don’t try to be Robin Hood before you are the Sheriff of Nottingham. Accumulate capital. Build a war chest. Dominate your niche. Once you are profitable and secure, you can write the biggest checks for charity the world has ever seen.

Until then, your only charity is hiring one more employee.

Conclusion: Guilt-Free Profitability

To the founder in Indore, Bhubaneswar, or Coimbatore reading this: Do not feel guilty for wanting to be rich. Do not let the “woke” capital of the metros shame you into thinking “Profits are not enough.”

In a developing nation like India, Profit is the highest form of patriotism. Profit means you created value. Profit means you are not a burden on the state. Profit means you will survive to fight another day.

So, forget the “Impact” label. Go build a Dhanda.

Webverbal Pulse Action Point

The “Impact” Litmus Test: Ask yourself: “If all external funding (grants/investors) stopped tomorrow, would my ‘impact’ continue?”

• No: You are running a charity project.
• Yes: You are running a real business.