One of the more subtle lessons I took from working on acquisitions in India is that willingness to sell and willingness to collaborate are two very different things.
At first glance they look similar. There is no shortage of Indian companies signalling openness to a transaction. There are even more advisors willing to bring opportunities to your door. In a market this large and dynamic, deal flow is rarely the problem. Finding the right partner is.
The distinction sharpens as you progress
That difference became clearer the deeper our M&A trajectory got. For a mid-sized European acquirer, an Indian deal is rarely just a financial exercise. It is a long-term integration decision. And integration in practice depends far more on alignment and mutual commitment than on valuation.
That is where willingness to collaborate matters. Some founders are willing to sell because of short-term motivations — a liquidity event, a generational transition, a piece of the business they want to monetise. Others see real value in becoming part of something larger and continuing to contribute and build after the transaction. Those are very different dynamics.
For me, the latter is where the stronger acquisition logic usually sits. The first kind of willingness produces a closing. The second kind produces a working business two years later.
Indian industries are smaller than they look
Something else fascinates me about this market. India is enormous. Yet within most industries, the people in the top tier are remarkably connected. Networks overlap far more than outsiders expect. People know each other. Reputations travel. Boards rotate. A founder’s behaviour in a previous transaction is often known by his or her competitors three states away.
That makes informal market conversations surprisingly important. Talking broadly with industry peers, hearing different perspectives, triangulating impressions — all of that builds a more complete picture of a target than formal diligence on its own can. Sometimes those conversations confirm confidence. Sometimes they raise questions you would never otherwise have seen. And sometimes they reveal the most valuable signal of all: whether there is genuine relational fit.
A small story
One potential partner we engaged with had, long before any process became serious, already indicated openness not merely to sell, but to work together. There was visible interest in joining a wider group, not just exiting one. That changes the bond. It changes how the next two years go.
By the time formal diligence began, much of the harder work was already behind us — not the financial work, but the relational work that determines whether financial integration actually holds.
So what
If you are screening Indian targets, two practical lenses help keep the right ones visible.
First, separate “willing to sell” from “willing to collaborate” explicitly in your assessment. Spreadsheet diligence will tell you the first. Only conversation tells you the second.
Second, take the informal industry network seriously. In India, the strongest signals about how a founder behaves under pressure rarely come from the data room. They come from peers who have worked with the founder before. Make space in your process for those conversations. They cost little and can change the course of a deal.
Because that is ultimately where the real value of many acquisitions in India is created — not in the closing, but in whether the people on both sides genuinely believe integration makes each side stronger.
If this resonates, let’s talk.
