India can become a superpower. The more difficult question is why, despite having a large population, a sophisticated private sector, a strong services industry and a capable scientific establishment, India has not matched China's transformation into an industrial and economic giant.
My central argument is that India has demonstrated an ability to create islands of excellence; China has demonstrated an ability to industrialise at continental scale. The difference lies less in human potential than in manufacturing productivity, state capacity, infrastructure, education, urbanisation and the execution of economic policy.
India is already a major power in several fields. But becoming a comprehensive superpower requires much more than a large GDP, a space programme or military strength.
1. The scale of the gap is enormous
The World Bank's 2025 data illustrate the difference.
China
$19.5 trillion
GDP, 2025
$13,862
GDP per capita
India
$4 trillion
GDP, 2025
$2,703
GDP per capita
These are nominal US-dollar figures, not purchasing-power-parity figures. China’s economy is approximately 4.9 times India's in nominal terms, while its nominal GDP per person is about 5.1 times higher. Population alone, therefore, does not explain economic power.
2. The six fundamental reasons India trails China
1. India missed the manufacturing revolution
This is probably the single most important economic explanation.
China became the manufacturing base of the world. It built enormous capabilities in electronics, machinery, chemicals, steel, textiles, batteries, solar equipment and industrial components.
India took a different path. It developed globally competitive software, IT services, pharmaceuticals and other professional services, but did not create manufacturing employment on a comparable scale.
The distinction matters because manufacturing can employ millions of workers with secondary education, raise productivity through scale, and generate exports that finance imports of technology and energy.
The Federal Reserve's April 2026 analysis of India and the global economy identifies this difference in development models: China relied heavily on export-oriented manufacturing, while India's growth has been disproportionately driven by services.
2. China created an ecosystem, not merely factories
A factory is competitive only when its entire ecosystem works.
China developed, often within the same industrial regions:
Component manufacturers and specialist suppliers.
Reliable electricity, ports, roads and freight systems.
Industrial parks with supporting infrastructure.
Large pools of technically trained workers.
Logistics, financing and access to export markets.
An Indian manufacturer may have lower wages but still face higher logistics costs, delays, expensive land, inconsistent utilities or difficulty finding specialised suppliers.
China's advantage is therefore not simply cheap labour. It is the productivity of the entire industrial network.
3. India liberalised late
China began its economic reform and opening-up period in 1978. India undertook its major liberalisation in 1991.
That 13-year difference understates the real gap. China spent decades attracting export-oriented investment, developing special economic zones, building infrastructure and integrating its factories into international supply chains.
India's earlier model was more protectionist and bureaucratic. Industrial licensing, restrictions on imports and investment, and barriers to scaling businesses reduced competitive pressure.
India has since changed substantially. However, joining global supply chains is difficult when suppliers, skilled workers and logistics networks are already concentrated elsewhere.
The World Bank's account of China's development documents its extraordinary transformation since 1978, while also recognising the limitations of its investment- and export-led model.
4. India has too few large, productive employers
India has outstanding large companies, but a substantial share of its workforce remains in low-productivity agriculture and informal enterprises.
Many small businesses struggle to expand because of compliance costs, limited finance, inadequate skills, uncertain regulation and difficulty accessing markets.
The IMF's 2025 analysis identifies low manufacturing productivity, the dominance of small establishments and barriers to firm expansion as significant constraints. It also highlights the productivity gains possible from moving workers into more productive employment.
A country cannot become a superpower simply by creating more startups. It must also enable thousands of companies to grow into large, competitive employers.
5. Human capital has not kept pace with India's ambitions
India produces world-class engineers, scientists, managers and entrepreneurs. But a superpower needs high-quality education and vocational skills across a much larger share of its population.
The issue is not the absence of talent. It is the gap between elite institutions and the average school, college and technical training centre.
The economy needs more workers competent in industrial automation, precision manufacturing, materials science, machine tools, electronics, industrial chemistry and quality control.
India must also improve public health, nutrition and learning outcomes. These affect how productively people can work over an entire career.
The OECD's 2026 assessment identifies skills shortages, unequal infrastructure and low participation by women in skilled employment among India's structural constraints.
6. India does not mobilise its entire workforce effectively
Women’s economic participation is especially important. When a country educates women but does not enable them to enter and remain in productive employment, it sacrifices a substantial part of its potential workforce.
India also needs more productive jobs for young people, better urban transport and housing, and systems that allow workers to move from agriculture to industrial and service-sector employment.
China's development created large-scale migration from rural areas into industrial cities. India has not yet achieved a comparable transformation.
3. Is democracy responsible for India's slower development?
Partly, in the sense that democratic systems must negotiate competing interests, but democracy itself is not the fundamental obstacle.
India's democratic institutions, federal structure, independent judiciary and free press can make certain decisions slower. Land acquisition, environmental clearances, labour disputes and coordination between central and state governments can delay industrial projects.
China's centralised political system can mobilise land, capital and infrastructure rapidly. However, it can also make costly mistakes on a massive scale when policy fails, and China's development has depended on market incentives, entrepreneurship and foreign investment as well as state direction.
South Korea and Taiwan demonstrate that democratic or democratising societies can build globally competitive manufacturing industries.
India does not need to abandon democracy. It needs to make democratic governance more capable of delivering results.
4. What India should do differently: five priorities
Priority 1 — Make India a manufacturing and export powerhouse
Focus on electronics, industrial machinery, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, textiles, technical textiles, automotive components, batteries and precision engineering.
Measure success by domestic value addition, export competitiveness and productive jobs—not merely the value of factories announced or investments approved.
Priority 2 — Reduce the cost of doing business
Improve freight connectivity, ports, industrial electricity supply, land availability and customs procedures. Create industrial clusters where suppliers, manufacturers and logistics operators work together.
India's recent infrastructure investment is a useful foundation; the next challenge is reliability, efficiency and lower end-to-end logistics costs.
Priority 3 — Build employable skills at scale
Upgrade government schools, industrial training institutes, polytechnics and apprenticeships. Connect curricula to the needs of actual employers.
The objective should be millions of workers with demonstrable technical competence, not simply more graduates.
Priority 4 — Bring more people into productive employment
Expand labour-intensive industries, improve childcare and workplace safety, and make transport and urban housing more accessible to workers, particularly women.
A demographic dividend is valuable only when the population has productive employment.
Priority 5 — Move from assembling products to owning technology
Strengthen industrial research, university-industry collaboration, patents, advanced materials, semiconductor design and manufacturing equipment.
India needs globally competitive companies that own valuable technology, brands and distribution networks—not only companies that provide low-cost labour.
These priorities broadly align with the structural reforms identified by the World Bank, IMF and OECD.
5. Can India catch up with China by 2047?
Yes, India can become a substantially more powerful, prosperous and technologically capable country by 2047. But matching China's economic scale and living standards is a much more demanding target.
Consider the arithmetic. If India's economy grew at 7% annually in real terms for 21 years, it would become approximately four times larger in real terms. If China's economy also grew, the gap would not automatically disappear. To close it, India would need a sustained combination of faster productivity growth, industrial expansion, higher employment and competitive exports.
There are three important distinctions:
A large economy: India is already one of the world's largest economies.
A high-income society: This requires substantially higher productivity and income per person, alongside better public services.
A comprehensive superpower: This additionally requires technological leadership, industrial capacity, financial influence, military capability and the ability to shape international institutions.
China has its own structural challenges, including an ageing population, property-sector problems, debt and the need to increase domestic consumption. Its past growth model cannot simply be replicated indefinitely.
My conclusion
India's central problem is not a shortage of intelligence, entrepreneurial talent or ambition. It is the failure to translate these strengths into sufficiently broad-based productivity and industrial employment.
If I had to identify just one strategic shift, it would be this:
India must move from being an economy with world-class companies to being an economy in which world-class productivity is widespread.
That means productive factories, competitive exporters, skilled workers, effective public institutions and hundreds of thousands of businesses capable of scaling up.
India's services sector, digital infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, space programme and entrepreneurial base provide important advantages. The opportunity now is to combine those strengths with the industrial depth that China built over several decades.
The decisive variable will be the quality and consistency of execution over the next 20 years—not the ambition of the target alone.
Comments