India’s early industrialization efforts in the 1950s and 1960s were state-driven, with a heavy reliance on public sector enterprises in industries such as steel, aerospace, and defense manufacturing. However, this approach led to systemic inefficiencies, an absence of competitive pressure, and limited access to cutting-edge technology.
Additionally, India’s economy remained highly protectionist, restricting foreign investments and market competition. With limited exposure to global best practices and a constrained talent pool in high-tech fields, the country struggled to establish a meaningful presence in advanced manufacturing. The result was a missed opportunity in high-tech sectors, with India unable to capitalize on its early ambitions.
In stark contrast to its high-tech struggles, India’s pharmaceutical industry thrived despite lacking full vertical integration. The turning point came as global drug patents expired, opening opportunities for low-cost generic manufacturing. Initially reliant on European and Japanese suppliers for raw materials, Indian firms later leveraged Chinese manufacturers for cost-effective inputs, allowing them to scale rapidly.
This layered approach—focusing on specific segments of the value chain rather than attempting full vertical integration—enabled India to dominate the global generic pharmaceutical market. By specializing in cost-efficient manufacturing and regulatory expertise, Indian firms carved out a niche in a heavily commoditized industry, demonstrating that strategic positioning within a value chain can sometimes outweigh full control over it.
For decades, China dominated the global toy industry, particularly in South China, controlling over 80% of global market share. However, India has recently emerged as a challenger, driven by a combination of government protectionist policies, a booming domestic market, and localized product innovation.
Historically, India had a strong domestic toy industry focused on traditional, handcrafted toys, but lacked large-scale manufacturing capabilities. Recent government incentives, coupled with rising middle-class purchasing power, have enabled Indian manufacturers to scale up production and cater to both domestic and international markets. Unlike China, which dominates through mass production, India is differentiating itself by leveraging its cultural heritage—customizing toys to reflect regional preferences and traditional aesthetics.
This success reflects India’s broader industrial strategy: leveraging domestic strengths to create export opportunities, rather than directly competing with China’s economies of scale.
India’s industrial conglomerates have played a defining role in shaping the country’s manufacturing landscape, but their origins differ significantly from their Chinese counterparts.
While Chinese conglomerates often trace their roots to banking, finance, or real estate, Indian business houses emerged from trading and commerce. Historically, trading families from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and the Parsi (Iranian) diaspora built extensive networks with the Gulf, Africa, and Europe, later expanding into manufacturing and industrial sectors.
When India’s economy was heavily regulated, these conglomerates diversified across multiple industries to navigate restrictions and survive. However, post-liberalization, many of them restructured and consolidated, focusing on sectors where they could achieve global competitiveness.
This evolution has created a fundamental difference in industrial structures:
| ● | China’s manufacturing model is vertically integrated, with companies controlling multiple stages of production. | |
| ● | India’s model remains horizontally integrated, with firms specializing in specific segments of the value chain rather than fully owning upstream and downstream processes. |
This structural distinction has implications for India’s future in high-tech manufacturing—can it replicate China’s model, or should it refine its own unique approach?
The Indian government has been both an obstacle and a catalyst for manufacturing growth. In the past, high import tariffs and nationalization efforts sheltered domestic industries but limited their competitiveness. Today, however, India has embraced a more market-driven approach, introducing:
| ● | Production-Linked Incentives (PLI) to encourage domestic manufacturing. | |
| ● | Infrastructure investments in roads, power, and logistics. | |
| ● | Tax reforms such as GST (Goods and Services Tax) to harmonize the regulatory landscape. |
These policies have lowered costs, improved supply chain efficiency, and incentivized foreign investments, making India a more attractive manufacturing hub.
India’s biggest advantage is its massive domestic market, which few low-tech manufacturing hubs can match. Unlike countries such as Bangladesh (focused on textiles) or Vietnam (electronics), India benefits from sectoral diversity, spanning pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, medical devices, and even aerospace.
This breadth of expertise allows India to compete across multiple verticals, rather than being dependent on a single industry. Additionally, India’s labor force, while still in transition, offers a balance between cost competitiveness and technical capability.
India’s manufacturing landscape today is split into two parallel worlds:
| 1. | Globally integrated, world-class manufacturers—leveraging IoT, AI-driven inventory management, and predictive analytics to optimize efficiency. | |
| 2. | Fragmented, low-tech enterprises—often informal, small-scale, and slow to adopt digital tools. |
While large corporations have embraced Industry 4.0 innovations, smaller enterprises remain largely untouched by digitalization. Bridging this gap is crucial for India’s broader industrial transformation. To stay competitive, India must accelerate digital adoption at all levels—integrating small-scale manufacturers into modern supply chains and enabling them to compete globally.
The low-tech industrial foundation has provided it with a strong cost-competitive base, but its future lies in scaling high-tech industries. The transition from horizontal diversification to vertical specialization will require:
| ● | Greater investment in R&D to drive innovation. | |
| ● | Stronger policy support for high-tech sectors. | |
| ● | Global partnerships to accelerate technology transfer. |
As India positions itself for the future, the central question remains: Can India replicate China’s vertically integrated manufacturing success, or will it forge its own distinct, layered approach? The answer to this will define India’s global industrial role in the decades ahead.
To find out more about how IGPI Group can provide support for businesses, browse through our insight articles or get in contact with us.
Kohki Sakata, CEO of IGPI Singapore
After joining Cap Gemini and Coca Cola, Kohki joined Revamp Corporation where he managed projects on global expansion and turnaround in various sectors including F&B, healthcare, retail, IT, etc. After joining IGPI, he has managed projects mainly on global expansion and cross border M&A in various sectors such as logistics, IT, telecom, retail, etc. In addition to his broad experience in implementing solutions that has been developed in Western countries, he has developed multiple methods to turnaround Asian companies with focus on setting clear vision and employee empowerment. Kohki has proven the practicality of these methods by turning around Asian companies not only as an advisor but also as senior management.
He graduated from Waseda University Department of Political Science and Economics and IE Business School.
Shivaji Das, Managing Director of IGPI Singapore
Shivaji has over 20 years of strategy consulting experience, specializing in New Business Models, Innovation Roadmaps, and Sustainability Journeys. He has worked with private and public sector clients across 25 countries in sectors like Technology, Semiconductors, Chemicals, Healthcare, Renewable Energy, and Construction. Previously, Shivaji was a Partner and Managing Director-APAC at Frost & Sullivan. His paper on Artificial Intelligence was presented at CAINE-2000 in Hawaii, USA. He is the author of seven acclaimed travel, art and business books including The Visible Invisibles and Rebels, Traitors, Peacemakers (both Penguin Random House), as well as The Great Lockdown: lessons learned during the pandemic from organizations around the world (Wiley, USA).
He is an alumnus of IIT Delhi and IIM Calcutta.
IGPI Group is a Japan rooted premium management consulting & Investment Group headquartered in Tokyo with a footprint in Osaka, Singapore, Hanoi, Shanghai & Melbourne, as well as parts of Europe and India. The organization was established in 2007 by former members of the Industrial Revitalization Corporation of Japan (IRCJ), a USD 100 billion sovereign wealth fund focusing on turn-around projects in Japan. IGPI Group has 13 institutional investors, including Nomura Holdings, SMBC, KDDI, Recruit & Sumitomo Corporation to name a few. IGPI Group has vast experience in supporting Fortune 500s, Govt. agencies, Universities, SMEs and funded startups across Asia and beyond for their strategic business needs and hands-on support across a wide variety of industries. IGPI group has ~8,500 employees on a consolidated basis.
* This material is intended merely for reference purposes based on our experience and is not intended to be comprehensive and does not constitute as advice. Information contained in this material has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but IGPI does not represent or warrant the quality, completeness, and accuracy of such information. All rights reserved by IGPI.
Copyright© 2025 Industrial Growth Platform Pte. Ltd. All rights reserved. Web Excellence by Verz
