The op-ed does not explain why / how these two factors would affect the specific, limited goals being sought currently.

 

Even if India’s per-capita GDP lags behind China’s, America would benefit from stronger ties with India as long as American investments in India do well and as long as India’s economic growth continues.

 

Civil unrest in India has been a continuing phenomenon since Independence and will probably continue.  How and why should that affect the types of links being sought?  Of course, if the country goes up in flames, all bets are off.  That is not the prospect India faces.

 

A much bigger risk for Americans in forming economic / military agreements with India is the possibility that India will wiggle out of them or even renege on them if the agreements are no longer of importance to India or use other tactics or harassment of counterparties to frustrate contracts.  India has a history of arbitrary regulations (such as retroactive tax imposed on Vodafone), the refusal of payment due on the Dabhol power plant contract (built by American firms), the recent harassment of BBC and prior similar episodes in which companies like Coke, IBM and Pepsi were harassed or subjected to unfounded allegations.