‘Vietnam accepted weaknesses, India argued’: Chinese analyst decodes why India lost ‘China+1’ race
The “China+1” strategy refers to multinational companies diversifying manufacturing and supply chains beyond China by investing in additional countries. The strategy gained momentum following rising geopolitical tensions, trade disputes involving Beijing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and concerns over excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing.
- May 17, 2026,
- Updated May 17, 2026 8:30 AM IST
A social media post by China-based analyst Keji Mao comparing Indian and Vietnamese reactions to discussions on China’s industrial rise has triggered a wider debate online about India’s manufacturing ambitions, competitiveness, and openness to criticism.
Keji Mao, an analyst at the International Cooperation Center, founder of the South Asia Research Brief, and visiting fellow at the Harvard-Yenching Institute, shared his observations on X (formerly Twitter) while recalling presentations he had delivered years ago on China’s industrial and technological ecosystem.
According to Mao, the presentations — one for a Vietnamese audience and another for an Indian audience — received very different reactions despite featuring largely similar content.
In his post, Mao claimed Vietnamese participants listened carefully when he discussed the gaps between Vietnam and China. He said they openly acknowledged Vietnam’s shortcomings and even asked for deeper analysis on areas where the country lagged behind China’s industrial model.
However, Mao alleged that Indian participants reacted more defensively during comparisons between China and India. He wrote that many Indian attendees became “quite argumentative” and attempted to challenge the Chinese perspective on nearly every point raised.
According to Mao, the discussions often became debates instead of meaningful exchanges, making it difficult for him to fully explain his analysis.
He concluded the post by suggesting that these contrasting attitudes helped him understand “many years beforehand” which country would emerge as the stronger beneficiary of the global “China+1” manufacturing strategy.
Understanding the ‘China+1’ strategy
The “China+1” strategy refers to multinational companies diversifying manufacturing and supply chains beyond China by investing in additional countries.
The strategy gained momentum following rising geopolitical tensions, trade disputes involving Beijing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and concerns over excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing.
Countries such as Vietnam and India have aggressively attempted to position themselves as alternatives to China for global manufacturing operations.
Why Vietnam has emerged as a manufacturing hub
Vietnam has become one of the biggest beneficiaries of the China+1 shift, particularly in sectors such as electronics, textiles, and export-oriented manufacturing.
Global firms including Samsung Electronics and suppliers linked to Apple Inc. have significantly expanded production operations in Vietnam over the past decade.
Industry experts often attribute Vietnam’s success to streamlined export policies, trade agreements, competitive labour costs, and relatively faster execution of industrial projects.
The Southeast Asian country has also benefited from its strong integration into global supply chains and proximity to Chinese manufacturing networks.
India’s push to be a global manufacturing power
India, meanwhile, has launched several initiatives aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing and attracting foreign investments.
Programmes such as “Make in India,” Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, and semiconductor manufacturing incentives are part of the government’s larger strategy to strengthen industrial capacity.
Major companies including suppliers of Apple Inc. and Foxconn have expanded manufacturing operations in India in recent years, particularly in smartphone assembly and electronics production.
India’s large domestic market, growing digital economy, and skilled engineering workforce are often seen as major advantages in the global manufacturing race.
Mao’s remarks sparked strong reactions online, with users sharply divided over his observations.
Some social media users agreed with his assessment, arguing that India often struggles to accept external criticism and sometimes prioritises debates over practical introspection.
Others, however, criticised Mao for oversimplifying India’s economic and cultural complexities. Several users argued that questioning assumptions and debating viewpoints are deeply rooted in India’s democratic and intellectual traditions.
Some commentators also pointed out that direct comparisons between India and Vietnam may not fully capture the differences in scale, governance structures, population size, and economic priorities.
While Vietnam has made rapid gains in export-driven manufacturing, India continues to position itself as a long-term industrial and economic powerhouse capable of serving both global markets and domestic demand.
Analysts believe the competition between Asian economies for supply chain diversification will continue to intensify as companies seek alternatives to China amid evolving geopolitical and economic uncertainties.
A social media post by China-based analyst Keji Mao comparing Indian and Vietnamese reactions to discussions on China’s industrial rise has triggered a wider debate online about India’s manufacturing ambitions, competitiveness, and openness to criticism.
Keji Mao, an analyst at the International Cooperation Center, founder of the South Asia Research Brief, and visiting fellow at the Harvard-Yenching Institute, shared his observations on X (formerly Twitter) while recalling presentations he had delivered years ago on China’s industrial and technological ecosystem.
According to Mao, the presentations — one for a Vietnamese audience and another for an Indian audience — received very different reactions despite featuring largely similar content.
In his post, Mao claimed Vietnamese participants listened carefully when he discussed the gaps between Vietnam and China. He said they openly acknowledged Vietnam’s shortcomings and even asked for deeper analysis on areas where the country lagged behind China’s industrial model.
However, Mao alleged that Indian participants reacted more defensively during comparisons between China and India. He wrote that many Indian attendees became “quite argumentative” and attempted to challenge the Chinese perspective on nearly every point raised.
According to Mao, the discussions often became debates instead of meaningful exchanges, making it difficult for him to fully explain his analysis.
He concluded the post by suggesting that these contrasting attitudes helped him understand “many years beforehand” which country would emerge as the stronger beneficiary of the global “China+1” manufacturing strategy.
Understanding the ‘China+1’ strategy
The “China+1” strategy refers to multinational companies diversifying manufacturing and supply chains beyond China by investing in additional countries.
The strategy gained momentum following rising geopolitical tensions, trade disputes involving Beijing, the COVID-19 pandemic, and concerns over excessive dependence on Chinese manufacturing.
Countries such as Vietnam and India have aggressively attempted to position themselves as alternatives to China for global manufacturing operations.
Why Vietnam has emerged as a manufacturing hub
Vietnam has become one of the biggest beneficiaries of the China+1 shift, particularly in sectors such as electronics, textiles, and export-oriented manufacturing.
Global firms including Samsung Electronics and suppliers linked to Apple Inc. have significantly expanded production operations in Vietnam over the past decade.
Industry experts often attribute Vietnam’s success to streamlined export policies, trade agreements, competitive labour costs, and relatively faster execution of industrial projects.
The Southeast Asian country has also benefited from its strong integration into global supply chains and proximity to Chinese manufacturing networks.
India’s push to be a global manufacturing power
India, meanwhile, has launched several initiatives aimed at boosting domestic manufacturing and attracting foreign investments.
Programmes such as “Make in India,” Production Linked Incentive (PLI) schemes, and semiconductor manufacturing incentives are part of the government’s larger strategy to strengthen industrial capacity.
Major companies including suppliers of Apple Inc. and Foxconn have expanded manufacturing operations in India in recent years, particularly in smartphone assembly and electronics production.
India’s large domestic market, growing digital economy, and skilled engineering workforce are often seen as major advantages in the global manufacturing race.
Mao’s remarks sparked strong reactions online, with users sharply divided over his observations.
Some social media users agreed with his assessment, arguing that India often struggles to accept external criticism and sometimes prioritises debates over practical introspection.
Others, however, criticised Mao for oversimplifying India’s economic and cultural complexities. Several users argued that questioning assumptions and debating viewpoints are deeply rooted in India’s democratic and intellectual traditions.
Some commentators also pointed out that direct comparisons between India and Vietnam may not fully capture the differences in scale, governance structures, population size, and economic priorities.
While Vietnam has made rapid gains in export-driven manufacturing, India continues to position itself as a long-term industrial and economic powerhouse capable of serving both global markets and domestic demand.
Analysts believe the competition between Asian economies for supply chain diversification will continue to intensify as companies seek alternatives to China amid evolving geopolitical and economic uncertainties.