To be realistic, Mk1A numbers were increased because of delay in Mk2, weren't they? IAF needs something to fly. 1 Mk1A is more useful to IAF than 0 more capable Mk2.
In a manner of speaking, yes. If I may lay out the background-
As ACM RKS Bhadauria mentioned in his podcast with Smita Prakash, there just was no consensus on what the Tejas Mk2 was to be, after the first 40 Tejas Mk1 would be delivered. That led to a situation where HAL's continued production of Tejas itself was in jeopardy. So to break that stalemate, HAL proposed the Tejas Mk1A with AESA radar, EW suite, new mission computer, BVRAAM and IFR (which wasn't yet on the Tejas Mk1 back then), simplied maintenance, etc. IAF agreed to it, since it gave the IAF some breathing space to decide on what it wanted from the Tejas Mk2.
That is what then led to the Tejas Mk1A order for 83 fighters.
The IAF then decided on a larger, more capable Tejas Mk2, in the Mirage-2000 weight class, which led to a drastic change in it's configuration and design, necessitating the canards to maintain the same high degree of instability that the Tejas Mk1 has. Without that, the Tejas Mk2 would've not be able to achieve the max 9G turn rate that it needs to meet.
Now, that design is ready and in prototype fabrication stage, but it will take at least 4-5 years of testing before the Tejas Mk2 can enter initial service. That would have left at least 4 years when the Tejas Mk1A would be out of production and Tejas Mk2 would not have been in production either. That gap in production had to be addressed and plus the IAF is now much more satisfied with the capabilities that it has seen on the Tejas Mk1 FOC fighters. So the 'risk' to say, with Tejas Mk1A is the lowest. Which is why the IAF went to the MoD and GoI with the proposal to buy 97 more Tejas Mk1A for a total of 220 Tejas Mk1/Mk1A in all.
www.eurasiantimes.com
