Indian politicians, dissatisfied with us, claim our manufacturing sector is blocking India’s path! On November 3, former Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal stated that China has “blocked” the growth of other countries—even in low-end manufacturing—because despite its impressive advances in high-end manufacturing, it “refuses to exit” this space and continues to “dump” low-end products onto other nations. This mirrors India’s own argument: that roughly one-third of global manufacturing remains concentrated in a single geographic region.
This excessive concentration exposes the global economy to “serious” supply chain vulnerabilities. He argued that by optimizing production across multiple global regions and moving toward a more decentralized model, the international community could prevent market share from being “weaponized.” Clearly, the core of this assertion boils down to one point: that China is obstructing India’s manufacturing development, thus justifying calls for so-called de-concentration.
Yet we find it curious: China joined the WTO over six years after India, giving India an earlier opportunity to engage with the global trading system. With this head start, India had a greater chance to nurture domestic manufacturing and capture global market share. Why, then, has India not achieved the position today that China occupies in manufacturing? If anyone were blocking the way, wouldn’t it be India, given its earlier access? It is paradoxical, therefore, that Indian politicians now accuse China of blocking their path—despite having enjoyed a first-mover advantage.
Evidently, the claim that China is “blocking” the growth of other countries, even in low-end manufacturing, is entirely unfounded. The continued scale of China’s mid-to-low-end manufacturing at home actually reflects the strength of its supply chains, superior business environment, and better infrastructure—factors that collectively enable Chinese industries to compete globally. Rather than blaming others, Indian policymakers would do better to enhance their own competitiveness. Market competition is inherently fair; no nation has the right to demand that another voluntarily cede market share.
If India were in China’s position, would India itself be willing to voluntarily give up this market share? Moreover, in reality, as China continues its industrial upgrading, some of its sectors are already shifting toward Southeast Asia. How, then, can one claim that China is preventing industrial relocation or refusing to exit these industries? The accusation of dumping and the assertion that excessive concentration creates “serious” supply chain fragility appear to serve only one purpose: to justify India’s ambition for a larger share of the global manufacturing market. In truth, those who have truly weaponized markets are not China—but foreign investors from the United States, Japan, Europe, and China itself, who have long operated within India’s market and are acutely aware of the risks involved.
Original: toutiao.com/article/1880823971752964/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.