And btw PLARF is exactly the kind of tool PLA uses to destroy airbases with
This is an important detail (not even in the Indian context - the very same fact is applicable to, for example, Chinese SCS bases, which everyone likes to "destroy").
While reinforced aircraft hangars and other infrastructure per se can be destroyed - airfields themselves essentially can't (discounting nukes).
There is simply only so much you can do by a limited number of payloads(dozens of warheads) with a huge flat reinforced piece of land.
1. Even when specialized warheads are employed - typical damage to runways is repairable within hours. The most classic case is 13.11.1942 bombardment of the Henderson airfield - when whole airfield was meticulously battered by two
battleships. An
equivalent of several hundred(!) BMs were meticulously and precisely offloaded on a complex of just 1.5 airfields(main and auxiliary strip). The very next day airfield was operational enough to launch some strikes(and sink ships) - and in the Andaman case we're talking about many times more.
This doesn't mean BR strikes are meaningless - quite the opposite, the abovementioned action was an extreme success, which almost won Japanese the whole campaign. But it won't "destroy" the airfield.
2. Provided opponent did bother to properly disperse aircraft, fuel, technical/flight personnel, and so on - they're likely to survive and be employed. So, basically, your opponent has to make a very big mistake of negligence for it to work. Incompetence-level negligence.
3. Fighters with sufficient STOL performance are likely to be able to take off/land anyways - undamaged parts of runways . Su-30MKI is one of them.
It's more complicated with heavier aircraft, but the most crucial ones - heavy transport aircraft, which may bring key replacement stuff - do have STOL and unpaved field capability.
Guess what... Indian airfields in Andamans is even within reach of CJ-10 cruise missiles from mainland China. PLAN can bombard it from the Gulf of Thailand as well. I'm sure the Thai and Burmese won't mind missiles flying past a slither of their nations for a few seconds.
Only close allies(who are already on your side in this war) don't mind such things, because this is an act of aggression in a sense of UN charter. Both to the state trespassed, and for the state trespassed itself in relation to the belligerent(in this case - India).
There is however a way to launch them either from the Northern axis(from Tibet, over West bengal) or simply by aircraft/ships launching them through straits (H-6s have enough range to make it happen).
Finally, newer PLAN submarines can do it as well - and be much sneakier at that (no extreme ranges=use of Lo-Lo-Lo profile). But on a comparatively smaller scale.
Expending dozens of MRBM just to negate IAF presence in Andamans is more than worth it when China has hundreds if not over a thousand MRBMs and can produce them faster than any other on earth.
You're expending a ~1-2 dozens per airfield (strip crossings; key storage areas and facilities; aircraft parking; fuel storage; barracks), and they are very unlikely to permanently put airfields out of commission(see above). Increasing tonnage per airfield after this number will do disproportionally less per effort spent. And tbh it's probably better to spend additional missiles over time for the same targets instead of adding new holes in less critical areas.
It's certainly worth doing it (and launch ALCM strikes as well), but expecting so many airbases to be shut down because of that is probably wrong.