How Startup India hype and IBC wrecked Indian manufacturing
The Manufacturing Mirage: Four Essays on IBC, Hardware, and Reform
Manufacturing Mirage is the name of the pattern: a Code sold as rescue, software capital sold as factories, and a country that still counts bank recovery while the plant dies on a different clock.
This page is a map. The rupees, votes, and dates live in the four parts. I will not invent a combined capital total, a jobs census, or a Paper Empire. Start with Part 1 or Part 4.
Manufacturing Mirage is four essays, not a slogan. They document how India’s Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and a venture clock that treats a plant like an app, wrecked manufacturing I actually lived — and manufacturing I can only read in orders. Su-Kam went through CIRP. Other names went through years of court, an unimplemented plan, or a hung vote. Hardware startups burned software money without needing a thirty-year brand. The close is reform, and a rebuild outside the name the Code took.
The four parts
| Part | What it is | What it is not |
|---|---|---|
| Part 1 — 77 patents dispersed | Su-Kam 77 patents sat in a going manufacturer. CIRP scattered the R&D. The patents did not vanish from a registry. Growatt, Sungrow, Solis, Huawei, Goodwe went from a negligible 2018 presence to majority share by 2024, as already published on this site with trade press. CIRP cost ₹45 crore; COVID-period sale ₹49.50 crore; banks recovered about ₹8 crore. | A creditor auction of IP as the story; Africa/ME percentage tables; a 30,000-job census |
| Part 2 — VC hardware graveyard | Software money asked to run a plant. Ola Electric is still listed. Log9 hit NCLT after the LTO bet lost to cheaper Chinese LFP. Altigreen’s Malur plant went quiet without a CIRP cited there. Euler is the contrast — a 2023 cut, then Hero MotoCorp on the cap table — not the corpse. | One funeral for four companies; a combined $1.2 billion or 2,120-job total |
| Part 3 — IBC liquidation machine | Delay: Videocon Industries admitted 6 June 2018, still a group-CIRP fight in 2026. An unimplemented plan: Educomp’s Ebix approval. Deadlock: Hero Electric Vehicles — not Hero MotoCorp — feasible plans, 47.66% against 66%, liquidation under §33(1)(a). Average CIRP about 744 days on this site. Essar Steel is the counter, not proof the Code works for manufacturing. | One completed liquidation for all three; a 4,000-employee Educomp census |
| Part 4 — Section 29A, the clock, a comeback | Four changes: bind the 330-day clock; keep an operational plant running in CIRP; Section 29A reform that bars fraud, not the honest builder; a dual object — creditor recovery and a going manufacturer. The rebuild named there is Su-vastika and Kunwwer.ai, outside the name the Code took — not proof the Code is merciful. | A national wealth-shift essay; invented reform percentages; a UK/EU league table |
What the four parts share
A law or a fund clock that sounds like rescue and executes as destruction. Videocon waited on a cause list from 2018 into 2026. Su-Kam’s founder was told he had no role inside 180 days, then barred by Section 29A from bidding for the company that still held the patents. Ola Electric listed and lost e-scooter leadership while the plant still existed. Hero Electric’s CIRP expired with feasible plans on the table. Different files. Same mismatch: the brochure is 330 days or a Series D; a manufacturer lives on tooling, warranty, and people who still know the board.
I will not turn that into a single rupee. Part 1’s ₹45 crore / ₹49.50 crore / ₹8 crore is Su-Kam. Part 2’s cited rounds are per company. Part 3’s Twin Star remainder and Ebix ₹325 crore are those files. Adding them would be a cartoon.
This article answers
- What is the Manufacturing Mirage series, and in what order should you read it?
- How does Part 1’s patent wreckage differ from Part 2’s VC hardware clock?
- Why is Part 3 not one funeral for Videocon, Educomp, and Hero Electric?
- What four changes does Part 4 ask for — and where is the comeback?
If you write law
Do not point at Essar and call the rest outliers. Read Part 4 before the next amendment. Bind the clock. Keep the line running. Stop treating every founder as a fraudster. Count plants, not only recovery percentages.
If you are a founder
Read Inside the CIRP and Section 29A before you treat 330 days as a project plan. Then read Part 1 for what that calendar did to a technology stack, and Part 3 for delay, an unimplemented plan, and a hung vote. Personal guarantees have a second war after the company is gone.
If you put money into hardware
Read Part 2. A scooter, a cell, and a three-wheeler are not an app with a burn multiple. Euler is in that essay as contrast: patient OEM capital next to a pure VC clock — not as a corpse.
How the four parts connect
- Part 1 → Part 2: IBC can take a thirty-year stack. Software capital can hollow a plant without waiting for that stack. Same country. Different clocks.
- Part 2 → Part 3: Log9 shows NCLT can arrive after the market has already failed the chemistry. Videocon, Educomp, and Hero Electric show what the Code does to names that already had decades — delay, paper resolution, or liquidation after a hung room.
- Part 3 → Part 4: The machine is the calendar and the CoC. The four changes are in the close.
- Part 4 → Parts 1–3: Section 29A is the lock on the builder who still knew the product. The clock that does not bind is Videocon’s eighth year and Hero’s 47.66%. The rebuild outside the old name is not a happy ending for Su-Kam 77 patents as a national programme.
Start with Part 1 if you want the wreckage in one factory. Start with Part 4 if you want the prescription first. This hub is the map, not a fifth memoir.
Kunwer Sachdev
Founder, Su-Kam Power Systems (1988–2019) and Kunwwer.ai, mentor at Su-vastika — the “Inverter Man of India” and the “Solar Man of India.” Read his story →