As I said, China is now able to afford protectionism
because of a much more foreign investment minded policy than India. It's weird to only focus on protectionism being a
positive when almost all of the more protectionist countries are way behind economically. China has been the most successful when it has had the least closed economy and it didn't start producing Lenovo laptops because of protectionism. If that was the case, why don't we have Indian or Argentinian laptops by now?
Arguing that protectionism is good because you are producing beverages when the downside is literal decades lost to anemic growth and poverty is just missing the forest for the tree. India was at a similar but better place than China was, but China embraced foreign investment, liberalization, low friction to trade. And india got totally leapfrogged. Things are changing now, but for a while China was definitely much safer to invest in than India since the whole country was hellbent on not interfering with foreign investing. You were (and still are) much more likely to get your investment made worthless by aggressive "local at all costs" policies in India than in China. Look at what happened to Walmart recently. India wants desperately to skip the "industrialization" and foreign ownership phase and go directly to where china is now, but that's ignoring 30 years of smart policy in China.
Keep in mind, free trade and free international markets still allow for a very regulated economy and socialist policies. So protectionism, by reducing prosperity and investment actually cripples social programs. Scandinavia is known to be "social democrat" but still has a very open economy. Prosperity has been mostly induced by free movement of goods. Of course, China does not want to keep being a manufacturing only economy, and is moving towards a service oriented one. But that's what always happens