He's not wrong, in the general sense of his statement.
China's biggest issue remains battlefield experience. They have gotten a bit over the years through UN deployments, as well as volunteer service through thr Russian Army's invasion of Ukraine, but other than that, China remains largely an untested fighting force.
They have the technology to overwhelm 99% of adversaries, but the question remains, is their ground army good enough to challenge another military power man to man?
First of all, india and power should not put into the same sentence.
Secondly, you have way overestimated the effects of "experience", otherwise african warlords must be regarded as world military superpower.
Thirdly, expericence depend on gain from who, if you keep fighting with low-tech
guerrilla like the US, then that experience you got is most consist of how to avoid IEDs, the experience may have a negative impact for you against China, the US in the past wasted alot of time on failed light armed police-like force and LCSs, all gained from experience fighting someone who can barely fight back.
And you know Rafale is also "battle-tested" in serval French missions against countries with no air powers/defense.
And lastly, there is definitely strong correlation between a country's capability to build modern weapons and get a strong military force to fight enemies, it is all about the general society organization (industry and today's military both required that), and general public education, etc.
If india army lost to China during a cold weapon fighting so badly, even through it were them trying to ambush us first, I dont know how you believe they stand any chance against us in a hot war.