Fancy tech solutions are fine, but they need to solve real-world problems: Harish Hande, co-founder, SELCO

Indian Express

03-05-2025

Harish Hande is a pioneering social entrepreneur and co-founder of Solar Electric Light Company (SELCO), a social energy enterprise delivering sustainable energy solutions for the poor. He has worked with rural artisans and entrepreneurs to understand their challenges and provide cost-effective and workable tech solutions.
Harish was the recipient of the Ramon Magsaysay Award in 2011 for his pragmatic efforts to put solar power technology in the hands of the poor. He is also the winner of the Ashden Awards and Skoll Award for Social Entrepreneurship, and was named Social Entrepreneur of the Year by the Schwab Foundation. Harish holds a bachelor's degree in energy engineering from IIT Kharagpur and a master's degree and PhD in energy engineering from the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
Harish spoke to indianexpress.com on the need to talk about failures in an honest manner and learn from the same, the tech solutions relevant to the rural poor, and how AI might impact appropriate tech. Edited excerpts:
Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tell us about your Impact Failure Conclave and learnings over the years.
Harish Hande: You must understand that no one likes to speak of failures. One might think this is a facet in the corporate world, but it is prevalent in the impact sector, too. There is a lot of self-glorification. Maybe it is because there is that pressure to raise funds, or that funders might be keen that their impact is magnified.
That is why we began this Impact Failure Conclave for an honest appraisal of what had gone wrong and how things could be changed. The first one was held in 2018, and later in 2022, and recently in 2025. It is an SELCO Foundation initiative.
We in the impact sector speak of our achievements in glorified terms, and no one wants to rock the boat. Unless we speak of our failures, we will keep on trying to reinvent the wheel. We need to normalise the word failure, perhaps celebrate it and learn from it. Earlier, there was a lot of fear and hesitation among the participants, but now it has gone down. There is a lot more openness, and hopefully, there will be learnings for social enterprises and those in the impact sector to turn around.
Venkatesh Kannaiah: You talk about the lack of clarity on problem statements and tech solutions that could solve these problems. Can you elaborate?
Harish Hande: There is a dichotomy between needs and wants. The rural, frugal entrepreneur is looking at using tech to solve the problem of his needs, while the middle or upper-middle-class urban startup is looking at solving the problem of wants. It is looking at expendable income and for products to target the same.
And many times, I feel that the technical solutions that we come up with are like saying that we could give you a typewriter in two years. You must understand that the world has moved on. We are siloed in our thinking, hence our tech innovations too are siloed. Today we are taking a solution and want to find a problem it could resolve.
Take, for example, the case of solar water pumps for small farmers. We need to be clear about the problem we are trying to solve. The problem is water for irrigation, and the issue of cropping patterns, and usage of solar water pumps falls into that ambit. But nowadays, we forget the core problem we are looking to solve and get fascinated with tech, and start promoting solar water pumps, whether the situation demands the same or not. That is the issue. For instance, why do we need solar water pumps for sugarcane in dry areas of northern Karnataka? Can't we grow millets? Solar might be free, but water is expensive.
Similar is the case with electric vehicles. The core problem we are trying to solve is transportation, but if you see the discourse around electric vehicles, one feels that it has been forgotten. We get so excited about a technology and forget about what it was supposed to solve. Then it would all lead to misplaced enthusiasm and the building of wrong incentive structures. So, with EVs, we are trying to put up a large number of charging stations. We need to articulate the problems we are planning to solve before we even jump to the technology.
Venkatesh Kannaiah: Tell us about some tech inventions/innovations in agriculture that did not work out and the reasons for the same.
Harish Hande: Some of the tech failures in the impact sector start with funding. Funding organisations should get away from deliverable funding. Are you creating processes and platforms so that more innovations would emerge, or are you fixated on some number? That is the key question. And then it becomes a deliverables game, and the impact is lost.
There is the example of milking machines. The machines that were made for milking desi cows did not work at all for milking water buffaloes in Assam. Now, one has to understand where and how this problem arises. Innovators should have a deep understanding of the requirements on the ground. It is not a one-size-fits-all. Now, apart from those building the tech, those who are implementing the tech on the ground also need to be sensitised. Finally, what it has led to is that dairy farmers feel that milking machines as tech is unreliable and does not work.
There is the issue of cold storage. It works very differently for dry and wet ginger. Cold storage is good for dry ginger, not for wet ginger, and this point was completely ignored. This tech was introduced in various regions by the government and by the impact sector, and it has created a lot of avoidable confusion. The same is with cold storage for flowers. It depends a lot on where the cold storage is: is it at the point of sale, when it is transported, or at the location of plucking? We see tech as a stand-alone, say, like a television set that would work anywhere. But tech that has to do with livelihoods needs to be looked at from a different perspective.
Let us look at simple tech like solar-powered sewing machines which were introduced in some areas and which led to more shirts being sewn per day. It is a good tech but introducing it in areas without working on enhancing the demand for shirts does not really help the person using the tech.
Same is the case with, say, microgrids. We assume that since the tech is there it would be used the same way in all cases and situations. It is not the case.
One builds payment schedules and patterns based on some assumptions, and when it does not work out, the tech has no takers, or it fails.
Venkatesh Kannaiah: Can you talk about inventions/innovations in medtech that failed to take off or did not have a substantial impact?
Harish Hande: The first thing that comes to mind is vaccine refrigerators. There are so many design flaws in these products. Either it is too big, or too cumbersome, or too heavy. In resource-poor settings like rural India, managing it is a big hurdle. In most cases, the doors at these primary healthcare centers are small, so you need to demolish them to take the vaccine refrigerators in. Designers should understand resource-poor settings and build designs with empathy. There is always a one-size-fits-all mentality. Many of these are perhaps built according to WHO specifications, and do not take Indian conditions into account, and when different Indian conditions are encountered, designers and manufacturers do not go back to making improved or different versions. They have a take it or leave it attitude.
Even simple things like chairs in dentist rooms are very cumbersome to manage in rural settings. It can neither be folded nor shifted easily. While the opportunity is for health at the doorstep, design flaws make it difficult for the benefits of such tech to reach the poor in rural areas. Why can't dentist chairs be foldable? Designers need to answer.
Take the case of baby warmers. It consumes so much power that it is not a viable option in remote settings where decentralised solar is the only power source. In most of our products, we seem to be adding more and more sophistication to the features, but it puts a strain on resource-poor settings..
Venkatesh Kannaiah: SELCO is a pioneer in the solar energy space. What has changed over the years in terms of interest, innovations, funding, and how has it affected your operations?
Harish Hande: At SELCO, we had come to solar energy from a perspective of decentralisation and sustainability. Now, it has become more mainstream, but it has lost its sustainability ethos. It has become part of the consumerist mindset and lifestyle. For example, if this building is fully powered by solar, does it give me the right to put 20 more air conditioners? That is the question. The beauty of solar energy was the possibilities it provided for decentralisation. That meant empowerment of the people and a certain democratisation. But that has changed now.
Venkatesh Kannaiah: Can you name a few successful appropriate tech solutions in India that have worked on the ground?
Harish Hande: There are backpack refrigerators by Blackfrog Technologies which has developed a patented rapid cooling technology for the last-mile transport of vaccines. It can also be used to transfer clinical laboratory samples, insulin, breast milk, blood serum, and medications.
There is work going on with spindle weaving and silk weaving technologies, grading of millets, and also with solar-powered 'chakli -murukku' making or even solar-powered chips making. You can even use an app on the phone to control the thickness of the chakli or murukku.
Venkatesh Kannaiah: Can you tell us about a few tech for impact startups that caught your eye?
Harish Hande: One of the startups works on partograph, a software-based technology that monitors the condition of a woman during pregnancy, just before childbirth, and whether it's going to be a high-risk pregnancy.
Another interesting innovation was within one of General Electric's divisions that cut down the power consumption of vaccine refrigerators and baby warmers by one-sixth.
There are millet graders, weeding machines, seeding machines, drying machines, and roti rolling machines.
Harish Hande: I see AI as an enabler to speed up innovation for the poor. I think it would help researchers speed up their search for alternatives and come up with solutions faster. The fear that AI would disrupt jobs is a bit misplaced. We need to see AI as an enabler and not as a decision-maker. Use AI effectively, and perhaps we won't go on reinventing the wheel.