My main contribution was to demolish the myths that India couldn't economically afford nuclear weapons. Of course I made these political arguments too, but the main contribution I made was a study of the cost of acquiring a credible deterrent, and show that it was within the budget of India, and it would not be an unbearable burden.

I think Pakistan was not a factor in terms of decision India to obtain nuclear weapon. Because there was no talk of Pakistan having any capability. The main factor was China. And the international prestige that China was getting as a consequence of having its own nuclear weapons.

I certainly think the antagonism came out of a mistaken notion amongst the Indian people that the Chinese aggressed on us, and they thought, Indian people

The traditional Indian view was to protect our independence; it was therefore quite consistent with the requirements of the time and the feeling of the people. The world may have been misled by Jawaharlal Nehru's own international projection, which in fact had no reality on the ground.

We [India in 70s] certainly were capable of producing eight to ten bombs, at a cost of about $250,000 each; and we had Boeing 707s to deliver them if we needed it, so I think we had a crude capability already at that time.

India was not a pacifist country at all. India placed great emphasis on the higher value on... on violence. But it was never a substitute for not doing anything, or for cowardice.

I think there is a misunderstanding about Indians' traditional views. India did send army into Goa, India did send an army into and fought a war in Kashmir in 1948, India did get Hyderabad by force... I think the narrow projection on the international... arena distorted India's image.