Hope India is not the second China, where they are invested and destroyed when being strong because of threatening America's position.
Businesses don't care about anything you do at home, which is most of where the culture is different.
India definitely is more of a western country when compared to China
Institutions such as civil services, education framework, public works department, court, corporate laws, penal code etc are all from the British era, carried forward post independence with minimal change if at all.
It is this bureaucratic structure that makes India work and any work needs to make it’s way through this to get implemented. Whatever politicians promise is largely irrelevant, by and large because they’ve been known to get lost in this labyrinth of bureaucracy.
The Indian version of British comedy “Yes Minister” was quite popular in India, for a good reason as Indian could relate to it .
So yes, Indian ruling structure is definitely closer to “West” than to China. But we could be more specific and say it’s close to British, because they were the ones who put it in place to begin with.
The premise of OP's argument is that India is more similar to the West than is China. The conclusion is that relative similarity will impede a future push by the West to divest from Indian manufacturing. There's a bit of a switcheroo in that argument, because the conclusion is only weakly supported by the premise. The strength of the argument depends on a comparative advantage in India-Western similarity versus Sino-Western similarity.
I don't agree that India is more of a Western country than China, apart from the influence of British rule. Think about cultural norms, religious thinking, political philosophy, racial discrimination, and women's rights in India. Would you describe these aspects of India as "Western"? China is arguably a more capitalist country than India; does that mean it is more "Western"?
Even if India were "more similar" to the West than China, it is so dissimilar from the West that it is totally within the realm of reason that the China manufacturing quagmire could be replaced by an equivalent India quagmire within a decade or two.
Both countries are faraway, populous, third-world regional powers with nuclear weapons and territorial disputes. They are more similar to each other than either of them is to the West.
There exist many third-world nations that are smaller (thus easier to influence) and closer to home (thus easier to defend in times of insecurity). If we have to invest in creating a new manufacturing hub in a place that will inevitably profit handsomely from our consumer demand, there is little sense in repeating the mistakes of the past and putting that hub in a massive Asian nation with which we have little in common.
The systems of government, economic engines, individualism vs. collectivism are all well-aligned.
Although India has the potential to be a threat, so far it hasn't been and the more the US can invest in India and 'own' large swathes of key industries the better for the US but someday India may wake up to the fact that their economy is, or can be, larger than the US's and start acting accordingly.
It's a bait and switch. Get foreign investors to build companies in your country. Let them pay for training. Children can now go to school and university. They become adults and gain experience during their job. They now want to leave the country for higher incomes (jackpot). Then finally give them a reason to stay. The Chinese government has amassed an insane amount of money and growth during their business friendly periods and is now able to deploy it for protectionist measures.
The reason why protectionism is a bad idea is that it's commonly used in incompetent governments that are prone to corruption before the country is ready. They instate the protectionism before the country has formed a competitive industry. The end result is that consumers have to pay hefty tariffs on foreign products that are almost impossible to replicate domestically like GPUs or CPUs. Alternatively consumers are stuck with inferior domestic products because there is no reason for the domestic monopoly to improve without competition.
Saying this, you need to mention just how fast they burn that money.
I once did a contract for a company that participated in a $1.9B OBOR project, where $600M managed to vanish into thin air, $150M was outright stolen, and the remaining $1B never materialised.
The procurator office of the country managed so far to recover $460M from all over the world from the missing $600M.
The most shocking out of the whole story was how the Chinese side reacted. Their stance was like "You "lost" $600M, and so what? We have more"....
Mind you they are making a profit, not running a charity
Nothing is black and white.
Domestic markets were kept relatively closed in order to foster development of local industry and companies.
Even without their will to control information for political purposes they would have not allowed such a key industry to be controlled by foreign players, and they have a strategy of creating a strong national industry in all sectors.
Is it simply that The Coca Cola Company and PepsiCo have better lobbying than Google/Amazon?
India's present economic strengths and growth opportunities are in its ability to carry out work in the English language and IT sector for a wealthier multinational market: it's not a good bet especially not in the short run to sacrifice those opportunities to try to get Indians to mainly use Indian manufactures. Which is also why you have Google India and Amazon India. China didn't really have that same level of opportunity even if they'd pursued complete economic openness that's entirely alien to their political culture. And most countries smaller than China have been highly selective about which industries and resources they protect and for good reason.
India's governance is a derivative of UK, so most likely just like UK with a 20 times bigger market.