As conversations around gender equity in the startup ecosystem continue to evolve, many founders are pointing to practical shifts that could gradually reshape how capital flows. Greater diversity within investment teams, for instance, can influence how opportunities are identified and evaluated, often leading to more varied founder pipelines at the decision-making stage, says Ankita Garg, co-founder and COO, Varaha.
“As representation broadens at the decision-making level, founder pipelines often become more varied as well. There is also an ongoing shift towards clearer evaluation criteria, particularly in sectors that require longer development cycles and operational depth. As assessment frameworks become more structured and data-driven, decision-making can rely less on informal signals and more on business fundamentals,” said Garg in an interview for DealStreetAsia’s recent report titled Women Founders in India: Funding Review 2025.
She added that another area that may influence outcomes is continuity of capital across stages. While entry points into entrepreneurship have expanded, ensuring consistent access to follow-on funding can help translate early participation into long-term scale. Structural change tends to be incremental. As awareness increases and institutional practices evolve, capital distribution patterns are likely to adjust over time.
Edited excerpts:-
What sparked your decision to start this venture, and how did you identify the gap in the market?
The decision to start Varaha came from observing a clear disconnect between climate capital and on-ground realities. In my previous roles managing agriculture input portfolios across the US, Germany, and India, I saw how agricultural systems function when farmers have structured support, access to capital, reliable data, and institutional advisory. Those elements were embedded into the ecosystem.
In contrast, smallholder farmers in India and neighbouring South Asian markets were increasingly exposed to climate risk, yet largely outside formal climate finance mechanisms. At the same time, voluntary carbon markets were expanding globally, with rising demand for nature-based solutions. The gap was not in intent or ambition, but in execution. Bridging that gap required building both technical systems and field infrastructure in parallel.
Varaha was established to design market-linked incentives that work within smallholder realities and connect global climate capital to farmers more effectively.
In the early stages, what structural or personal challenges did you encounter, and how much of that do you attribute to gender versus general startup realities?
In the early stages, most of the challenges were structural and typical of building in a new and evolving sector. We were developing operational systems, building technical capability, engaging farmers across multiple geographies, and navigating regulatory frameworks simultaneously. That level of complexity would have existed regardless of who was leading the company.
On the question of gender, it would be difficult to say it plays no role. In certain rooms, particularly in technical or capital-intensive discussions, there can be additional layers of scrutiny. These dynamics are not always overt, but they can influence how early conversations unfold.
Can you walk us through your fundraising journey—from your first pitch to closing the round? What were the toughest moments, and what shifted the outcome in your favour?
In the early stages, fundraising conversations often involved clarifying how the model translated into long-term value. Nature-based carbon projects in smallholder landscapes were still an emerging investment category, so discussions naturally covered fundamentals, how carbon credits are generated, how verification standards operate, how revenue timelines are structured, and how implementation connects to climate finance.
The technical nature of carbon markets can make the model appear complex at first. What helped over time was simplifying the narrative and drawing parallels with more familiar agricultural value chains. Framing the opportunity in terms investors already understood made the structure clearer.
Another important shift was being deliberate about investor alignment in the early stages. We initially focused on funds with prior exposure to agriculture and climate, such as Omnivore, where familiarity with farm-level realities and agritech models allowed discussions to move more quickly towards execution and scalability.
Do you think having male co-founders made a difference in your fundraising journey?
I tend to view our fundraising journey through the lens of team strength rather than gender. What made a meaningful difference was that each of us brought a demonstrated track record of building and executing at scale. Before Varaha, I worked at Bayer Crop Science, where we scaled precision agri programmes across three continents, and I co-founded Precify, a deeptech agro startup. That experience shaped how I approach building systems from the ground up.
Madhur had built teams, products and businesses interfacing with smallholder farmers from scratch, with an experience of scaling them to millions of smallholders. Vishal had led engineering at Cropin, one of India’s leading agritech SaaS platforms, with deep expertise in machine learning and remote sensing.
So when we spoke with investors, the conversation was grounded in demonstrated execution across geographies and functions, agriculture, technology, and scale. The complementarity of that experience mattered more than any single profile. Ultimately, fundraising reflected the collective credibility of the team and the clarity of the model we were building.
In today’s tighter funding environment, do you think female founders face distinct challenges?
In tighter funding environments, capital becomes more selective across the board. Investors narrow focus, prioritise proven execution, and evaluate risk more closely. At the ecosystem level, data continue to show that female-founded companies receive a smaller share of venture capital overall. That indicates structural patterns in capital allocation that still exist.
At the same time, many investors increasingly recognise the value of diverse founding teams. From an investor’s lens, complementary perspectives within leadership can strengthen decision-making, broaden networks, and improve resilience in complex markets.
From an organisational standpoint, having varied leadership perspectives can also influence how teams are built and how stakeholder relationships are managed, particularly in sectors like climate and agriculture, where engagement spans communities, institutions, and technology.
So while structural challenges may persist, there is also a growing appreciation that diversity in leadership can contribute meaningfully to how companies scale and operate.
Have you noticed differences in the types of questions or risk perceptions investors bring to female founders? How did you navigate those dynamics?
In fundraising conversations, particularly in technical or capital-intensive sectors, it is common for investors to focus heavily on risk framing. Questions around downside scenarios, operational resilience, regulatory alignment, and long-term defensibility are standard. That level of scrutiny is part of disciplined capital allocation.
What has shaped our experience more than anything else has been the collective track record of the founding team. Each of us brought prior experience in building and scaling across agriculture, technology, and digital systems. Those experiences helped ground conversations in demonstrated execution rather than abstract potential. In that sense, navigating investor dynamics has been less about responding to any particular perception and more about presenting the team’s experience and the model in structured terms.
Can you share a moment where bias —subtle or overt—showed up in your journey. Have you ever felt you had to over-prepare compared to male peers?
There have been moments in professional settings where initial assumptions about roles shape the early tone of a discussion. These situations are rarely overt, but they can be noticeable. Over time, I’ve learnt that presence does not need to be loud to be effective. Quiet confidence, being clear, structured, and measured, tends to shift the tone naturally. Rather than reacting to the dynamic itself, I focus on ensuring that discussions are grounded in substance. Over time, steady presence tends to reshape the tone of future conversations.
From your perspective, how has the ecosystem evolved for women founders over the past five years? Where has real progress happened, and where does the gap remain?
Over the past five years, participation and visibility for women founders in India have increased. Industry reports indicate that around 18% of startups in the country now include at least one woman founder or co-founder compared with smaller proportions in earlier years. This reflects a growing presence across sectors and a broader recognition of women’s contributions to innovation and entrepreneurship.
There is also greater representation today in accelerators, industry forums, and mentorship networks than was typical a decade ago. Conversations around capital access and founder diversity have become more mainstream, which contributes to a broader ecosystem awareness.
The next phase of progress will likely depend on whether the increase in founder participation is matched by expanded access to resources and opportunities across stages of growth.
How would you describe your leadership style, and has your experience shaped it differently from traditional founder archetypes?
My leadership style has been shaped by operating across very different environments, from managing institutional portfolios across multiple countries to working closely with smallholder communities on the ground. That contrast has influenced how I approach decision-making.
I tend to prioritise clarity and long-term alignment over rapid signalling. In the early stages of building a company, there is often pressure to move quickly and demonstrate momentum. My inclination has been to ensure that systems, teams, and incentives are aligned before scaling outward.
I also place significant emphasis on building internal capability. Rather than concentrating authority, I focus on developing people who can operate independently and make informed decisions. Over time, that creates resilience within the organisation.
How do you envision your company evolving over the next 5-10 years?
Over the next decade, I see Varaha strengthening its role within nature-based carbon markets by deepening both scale and consistency. In the near term, that includes expanding our work across smallholder landscapes in India and similar geographies while continuing to refine the systems that support reliable execution. Growth for us is not only about geographic footprint; it is about improving repeatability, strengthening farmer engagement, and ensuring that each new project builds on prior learning.
By 2030, we aim to enable at least 1 million smallholder farmers to adopt high-integrity climate solutions across South and Southeast Asia. At that scale, the projected climate impact is significant, with an estimated 50 million tonnes of CO2e reduced or removed by the end of the decade.
How important are women-led angel networks and VC funds in closing the gap?
Women-led angel networks and VC funds play an important role in broadening access and visibility within the ecosystem. They often expand sourcing channels and create entry points for founders who may not be part of traditional networks.
They can also bring varied perspectives to evaluation processes, which may influence how early-stage opportunities are assessed. In that sense, they contribute to diversifying both capital and decision-making. Women-led networks and funds widen access and create visible examples of successful outcomes, particularly when their momentum operates alongside wider shifts in capital allocation practices.
In many industries, women remain underrepresented in leadership roles. For women building in India today, what’s your advice?
My advice would be to start with depth. Build in areas where you have insight, whether that comes from professional experience, lived context, or close exposure to a problem. That clarity at the outset makes decision-making more grounded in the early years. It doesn’t mean limiting ambition or staying within narrow boundaries; it simply means anchoring the business in informed conviction.
Strengthening fundamentals early on is equally important, understanding your market deeply, building capable teams, and being disciplined about capital. Strong fundamentals become evident over time. It is also valuable to build strong professional networks. Access to informed feedback, mentors, and peer founders can make a meaningful difference, particularly in sectors that are technical or capital-intensive.
Finally, patience matters. The journey rarely follows a straight line. Staying anchored in long-term objectives rather than short-term validation can help navigate inevitable fluctuations.
