One of the most striking factors about China is the speed of infrastructure development. India too is now going full throttle on infrastructure building and has narrowed the gap in roads and urban transit since 2015.
For decades, urban planners, economists, and real estate developers have debated whether India’s metropolitan cities, notably Mumbai, could match China’s gleaming megacities like Shanghai. The comparison seems irrelevant, as China economy outpaces India’s by leaps and bounds and it uses far advanced technologies for infrastructure building.
While, China’s high-speed rail, smart city development, and strategic investments in high-tech zones are worthy examples to emulate. India too is making significant progress in terms of road expressways, high speed rails, metro expansion and smart city mission.
As a matter of fact, over the past decade (2015–2025), both India and China have made significant strides in infrastructure development, though their approaches, scale, and outcomes differ due to economic priorities, governance models, and geographic challenges.
Below is a comparison of key infrastructure sectors— roads, railways, airports, energy, and urban systems—based on available data up to March 18, 2025.
Roads Connectivity
India: India has significantly expanded its road network, focusing on national highways and border connectivity. From 2014 to 2020, 4,764 km of border roads were constructed, with 2,088 km along the China border between 2017 and 2022, costing Rs 15,477 crore.
The Bharatmala Pariyojana, launched in 2017, aims to develop 34,800 km of highways by 2027–2028, with substantial progress by 2025. As of 2024, 54% of India’s roads are paved, reflecting a push to improve connectivity, though rural and border areas still lag in quality.
China: China’s road infrastructure is more advanced, with 64% of its roads paved by 2024. Over the last decade, it added roughly 5,000 km of expressways annually, reaching 55,000 km by 2010 and exceeding 80,000 km by 2020.
In Tibet alone, the road network grew from 7,300 km in 1959 to 120,000 km by 2022, with significant investments (e.g., $4.2 billion in the 10th Five-Year Plan and $21 billion in the 11th).
China’s road network is more extensive and of higher quality, driven by decades of investment and easier terrain. India has accelerated construction, especially post2014, but faces challenges like rugged terrain and slower funding.
Railway Network
India: India’s rail network, one of the world’s largest, spans about 68,000 km of operational track. In the last 10 years, it added 697 km to its metro rail network (reaching 945 km by 2024 across 21 cities) and electrified significant portions of its tracks.
However, freight movement remains modest at 0.6 billion ton-km, and high-speed rail is still nascent, with the Mumbai-Ahmedabad line under construction since 2017, targeting completion beyond 2025.
China: China’s railway system is a global leader, with over 155,000 km of track by 2025, including 40,000 km of highspeed rail—the world’s largest network. The Sichuan-Tibet Railway (1,838 km), begun in 2014, is nearing completion by 2025, cutting travel time between Chengdu and Lhasa from 40 to 20 hours.
Freight movement is robust at 2.5 billion ton-km, reflecting industrial strength.
China vastly outpaces India in rail modernization and capacity, especially in high-speed and border connectivity. India’s progress is steady but slower, constrained by funding and bureaucratic delays.
Airports Development
India: India doubled its airport count from 74 in 2014 to 148 by 2024, with the UDAN scheme (launched 2016) boosting regional connectivity—425 new routes and 58 airports in five years. The goal is 220 airports by 2025, though delays persist. Major hubs like Delhi and Mumbai have been upgraded, but capacity strain remains.
China: China has over 240 airports, with 37 built between 2016 and 2020 under its 13th Five-Year Plan. Tibet alone saw dual-use airport upgrades near the LAC, including hardened shelters and extended runways. By 2025, China aims for 450 airports, emphasizing military and civilian integration.
China’s airport expansion is more ambitious and strategically focused, while India’s growth, though impressive, prioritizes domestic access over military utility.
Energy
India: India’s energy sector grew, with installed capacity rising from 344 GW in 2019 to over 400 GW by 2024. Renewable energy (solar, wind) surged, targeting 500 GW by 2030, but coal still dominates (50% of supply). Rural electrification reached 99% by 2019, yet per capita consumption lags China’s by a generation—around 1,200 kWh vs. 4,500 kWh in China.
China: China’s energy capacity exceeds 2,500 GW by 2025, with massive investments in coal, hydro, and renewables (e.g., 50% of global solar capacity). The 14th Five-Year Plan (2021–2025) emphasizes smart grids and 5G-integrated infrastructure. Tibet’s power connectivity improved with oil pipelines and grids along the LAC.
China’s energy infrastructure is far ahead in scale and modernity, while India’s progress is notable but hampered by reliance on outdated systems and lower investment (30% of GDP vs. China’s 50%).
Urban Systems
India: Urban infrastructure investment has risen, with metro networks expanding to 945 km by 2024 and the National Infrastructure Pipeline (2020–2025) targeting $1.4 trillion across sectors. The Vibrant Villages Programme (2022) aims to develop 662 border villages.
China: China’s urban systems, like Qingdao’s, outshine India’s best (e.g., Bengaluru) with advanced transport and sanitation.
China’s urban infrastructure is more, while India’s efforts, though accelerated post-2020, remain catch-up initiatives.
Affordable Housing
India: According to the research of CREDAI-MCHI, more than 50% of the housing demand in India is for affordable housing. However, only 15-20% of the new housing supply caters to this segment.
China: China’s affordable housing stock currently accounts for about 5% of the total housing stock and it is boosting this to 20%-30%, requiring an estimated 3 to 4 trillion yuan in financing.
China has a more active government role in providing affordable housing through subsidies and public housing programs, while India relies more on private sector initiatives.
Different Systems, Different Outcomes
The root of these gaps lies largely in system and governance. China’s model – authoritarian, one-party planning – can push through massive projects quickly. For example, the city of Shenzhen was created in 1979 and turned from a collection of agricultural villages into a major world port in just decades. Land was designated for special zones, and hundreds of high-rises and factories went up with minimal public objection.
In contrast, India’s democracy means multiple stakeholders have a say. Large projects often require lengthy approvals from local bodies, courts, and elected officials. Take the Mumbai–Ahmedabad bullet train (funded by Japan): it promised to cut travel time drastically, but land acquisition hurdles – especially in Maharashtra – have added 2.5 years to the schedule. Gujarat’s stretch has advanced under a pro-development state government, while Maharashtra’s political changes and land challenges stalled progress.
Key Takeaways for India
- Scale and Speed: Infrastructure development has to be faster, and more integrated, leveraging centralized planning and higher investment.
- Progress and Gaps: To focus on developing India rail and energy through higher funding and streamlined policies.
- Strategic Focus: Higher investments and developing projects that can serve dual civilian-military purposes can enhance capabilities and efficiencies both ways.
India - China - Contrasting Approach
China: State-led rapid growth: China’s infrastructure development is heavily driven by the government, with significant investment in projects like high-speed railways, ports, and major highways. However, large-scale projects can have significant environmental consequences and may involve displacement of communities. Moreover, China’s infrastructure spending is often funded by debt, which raises concerns about long-term sustainability.
India: Government investment and private sector participation: India is increasing its infrastructure spending, but it also relies on private sector investment. On the other end, India faces challenges in securing sufficient funding and in navigating bureaucratic processes.
Housing challenges is common to both India and China. India and China face different challenges. India has not invested enough in housing development causing affordable homes shortage in metro cities, while China has invested more than enough in some cities resulting in ghost towns lying vacant.
Conclusion
- China prioritizes rapid development, often at the expense of environmental and social concerns, while India focuses on sustainable development and a mixed approach to infrastructure, balancing government investment with private sector participation.
- China’s rapid development may come at the cost of long-term environmental and social sustainability, while India is striving for a more balanced approach.
- China’s infrastructure spending is heavily state-led, while private sector participation in India infrastructure development is a more balanced approach.
- China’s infrastructure development may lead to a more integrated and interconnected economy, but at the cost of social issues, while India’s approach may be painfully slow but more sustainable in the long run.
Landmark Infrastructure Projects
China
- Hang Grand Canyon Bridge that will be the world’s highest bridge
- Xiongan High-Speed Railway that will boost trade and travel
- Yarlung Zangbo River Dam which will be the world’s largest dam
India
- Atal Tunnel, the world’s longest highway tunnel
- Chenab Bridge, the world’s highest railway bridge
- Zojila Tunnel, Asia’s longest tunnel, for all-weather connectivity in Ladakh
Can India Match China’s Building Pace?
Bridging India–China infrastructure gaps would require sweeping shifts significantly boosting investment levels, potentially aligning India’s share closer to China’s ~50% of GDP, implementing land reforms, and drastically accelerating project execution.
To emulate China’s pace, India would need to ease many democratic checks – a politically daunting prospect.
But experts caution that India need not copy China’s model wholesale. Unlike China, India’s system is acutely sensitive to the political risks of sidelining farmers or voters, and its state finances operate under tighter constraints.
In other words, India ultimately may not become China – nor should it necessarily. Its path may lie in hybrid reforms: accelerating infrastructure through better planning and financing, but within a framework that respects its federal democracy. The debate continues, but what’s clear is that closing the gap will take legal, financial, and governance reforms as ambitious as the infrastructure projects they’re meant to support.
“Made in China 2025” is a national strategic plan and industrial policy in China aimed at transforming the country from a low-cost manufacturing hub to a global leader in high-tech industries by 2025. The plan focuses on increasing domestic content in key industries, reducing reliance on foreign technology, and boosting innovation in areas like robotics, semiconductors, and new energy vehicles.
“Make in India” initiative continues into 2025 with a focus on bolstering domestic manufacturing through a National Manufacturing Mission, aiming to create a global hub for specific sectors like toys and footwear. This strategy involves policy support for various industries, including MSMEs, and aims to increase the contribution of the manufacturing sector to the GDP and create jobs.
