As India rises in critical minerals race, can it dent China’s dominance?

While India could become a valuable part of an alternative supply chain, analysts say it is unlikely to replace China any time soon.

A new India-US pact on critical minerals has put the spotlight on New Delhi’s potential as an alternative to China, but analysts say despite the country’s significant resources, it is unlikely to dent Beijing’s dominance in the sector any time soon.

Delhi and Washington signed a framework agreement on May 26 during US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit to India to secure supplies of critical minerals and rare earths, including their mining and processing.

According to a US embassy statement, the framework would allow the United States and India to engage in international efforts to protect sensitive supply chains from “coercive market practices” and reduce their collective “vulnerability to single-source monopolies”.

The bilateral pact was signed before the Quad countries – Australia, India, Japan and the US – agreed in Delhi to launch a US$20 billion critical minerals framework.

The India-US pact comes amid mounting concern over China’s export controls on rare earth elements and strategic metals vital for global technology supply chains.

Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar described the agreement as “something very timely and critical”, while Rubio underscored the strategic importance of ensuring reliable long-term access to critical minerals and supply chains for both countries.

Critical comparison

China dominates the global rare earth and critical minerals market, but analysts say India has enough resources, market scale and political trust with Washington to become a valuable part of an alternative supply chain.

China accounts for about 70 per cent of global rare earth mining and processes 90 per cent of the world’s supply. It has also tightened export controls on 12 rare earth metals.

It has an estimated 44 million tonnes of rare earth oxides in its reserves, almost half of the world’s known reserves, according to a 2025 US Geological Survey.

India’s resource base is smaller but significant. It has reserves of 30 critical minerals, including lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, copper, titanium, tungsten, vanadium and niobium, according to the Ministry of Mines’ July 2023 report.

India also possesses rare earth deposits, primarily in monazite-rich coastal sands across several states, including Odisha, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu.

It holds 13.15 million tonnes of monazite, containing an estimated 7.23 million tonnes of rare earth oxides, according to a government press release in February.

Critical minerals are vital resources used in batteries, semiconductors, military equipment and other advanced technologies.

For 12 critical minerals, the US depends entirely on imports and President Donald Trump’s administration has pushed to diversify sourcing to reduce reliance on Beijing.

Aditya Ramji, director of the Global South Clean Transportation Centre at the University of California, Davis, said India was a good strategic partner for Washington because it offered market scale for technologies requiring mineral inputs, and had technological and research capability.

“Diversifying supply chains will minimise economic and geopolitical risks and provide reliable price signals for raw materials,” Ramji said.

“The US and India are among the largest consumer markets globally, offering domestic market scale to attract investments across the value chain.”

India also offered a gateway to the Global South as a reliable economic and trade partner, he added.

In the 2026-27 national budget, the Indian government introduced a policy measure to create “rare earth corridors” in Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh to mine and process rare earth minerals.

These corridors will support research and production of rare earth magnets for electric vehicles, wind turbines and other advanced technologies.

Foreign affairs analyst Robinder Sachdev said India mattered to Washington because of its resource base, strategic trust as a China hedge and large industrial economy, and the opportunity for constructive bilateral cooperation following a difficult period of trade tensions.

However, Sachdev said India’s rare earth sector had long been constrained by a nuclear regulatory framework.

“Much of India’s rare earth potential is tied to monazite, which also contains thorium. Because of the thorium, monazite was governed through the atomic-minerals system. This framework made sense for nuclear safety and strategic control, but it was not designed for commercial speed,” he said.

“India built a system to guard strategic material, then expected it to support a competitive rare earth and magnet industry. That mismatch, along with limited commercial development and weak private-sector participation, has held India back.”

Replacing China

Sachdev said India could become an important node in the non-China critical minerals chain, but it could not replace China for the foreseeable future.

“India does not match China in the scale and diversity of resources, the overseas mining assets controlled by Chinese companies, or the processing capacity built across the full critical minerals portfolio,” he said.

“The US has stronger mining capacity than India, while India has a meaningful but still underdeveloped resource base. For both countries, the more decisive weakness lies downstream – in separation, refining, metallurgy, alloys and permanent magnets. This is where China’s advantage is strongest.”

Sachdev said the “realistic goal” for India would instead be supply-chain resilience and protection of its national interest.

In December 2025, India approved a US$800 million plan to boost rare earth magnet production, aiming to secure supplies and cut its dependence on imports from countries like China.

Abhinav Sengupta, an energy and mining expert, said the India-US critical minerals partnership must move beyond formal agreements and become a real project-driven programme.

“The success of this partnership will depend not on announcements, but on whether India can create actual mines, refineries, recycling plants, overseas assets and trusted industrial partnerships,” Sengupta said.

India produces only four critical minerals – copper, graphite, phosphorus and titanium – due to limited exploration and processing capacity, according to the US International Trade Administration.

Sengupta said China’s dominance was not just about controlling the market – it also gave Beijing the power to influence supply chains and pressure other countries.

“India has a real opportunity to play a major role in reshaping global critical mineral supply chains. Realistically, India may not replace China on its own. But over the next decade, India can become one of the most important trusted alternatives to China in the critical minerals sector.”

Christopher Vandome, who leads the Chatham House Critical Minerals Initiative, said the deal mattered for India because its ambitions for critical minerals development required financing and secure offtake agreements.

“They [India] have significant potential in new mining developments that can become more feasible if they are locked into a wider geopolitical network on minerals,” Vandome told This Week in Asia.