WHAT WERE THE GOALS OF INDIA'S EARLY ATOMIC PROGRAM, AND HOW DID ATOMS FOR PEACE AFFECT IT?

Don't forget... that our program, our interest in atomic energy... goes back to a time when even the... Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs had not been exploded. I do not know whether you know the famous letter which Dr. Bhabha wrote to the Dorabji Tata Trust saying that when atomic energy becomes an economic proposition, India will not be found wanting in experts. Now, that's a remarkable statement to make towards the end of 1944, before... the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were actually exploded. So right from the very beginning, starting from fundamental research, India has been interested in nuclear energy. So...

LET'S TALK ABOUT ... ENERGY PROGRAM

Well, the major goals of India's atomic energy program, right from the beginning, has been the development of nuclear power... and, the use of isotopes... for medicine, agriculture, and industry. But, above all, the people who originated our program knew that in a country like India, a developing country like India, atomic energy could become the springboard for modern technology, and this is not fully appreciated. People think our atomic energy was only for pur-, matters dealing only with the atom, but this is not correct. They saw in it a new technology has come, and that we should exploit the atmosphere and the situation of the times, to make sure that we will not lose the second industrial revolution.

HOW FAR BACK DOES THE INDIAN ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAM GO?

Well, the Indian atomic energy program... many people don't know this, starts even before... the nuclear explosions that were used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In a letter dated towards the end of 1944, to the chairman of the Dorabji Tata Trust, Dr. Bhabha, our founder, made it quite clear... in a letter, in which he says that when... atomic energy becomes an economic proposition, India will not be found wanting in trained people. Now this is an almost prophetic statement. It is true that even before the war the scientists knew, all over the world, that atomic energy is a feasible proposition. But then, it became a weapons proposition because of the Second World War. But in countries like India, people went on thinking about this, and knew that useful energy could be produced from the atom. So, I would say that India started very early, and therefore when independence came... the importance on science was very high, because Mr. Nehru, the prime minister then, was very keen on development of science and all as-, all its aspects, and atomic, ener-, energy came just about the right time, for the development figures.

WHAT WAS IT LIKE BEING A SCIENTIST IN THOSE EARLY DAYS?

Well... don't forget that atomic energy... science in India has a history... starting from the early days of the century. And there was a tremendous interest in fundamental sciences, particularly mathematics... and spectroscopy, and, uh, various aspects of, uh, agriculture. So... the... general atmosphere of the country was, yes, we must do science. But the idea of it being useful, of benefit to the people, is a subsequent development. Previously it was purely academic in nature, and when the atomic energy program was started, there was total commitment by all scientists of the country that it should be developed. But developed by whom, and in which form, and which structure, was the arguments of those days. And I recall a meeting in 1954, in which our prime minister presided, as to how we should organize ourselves to have a rapid development of the use of atomic energy, both for power and the applied sciences.

WHAT DO YOU RECALL ABOUT HIS INTERESTS?

Pandit Nehru was quite a remarkable man. He had been, of course, been in Cambridge, and, uh, and un-, understood the importance of modern science. He knew enough about Indian culture, in that science, scientific research, was embedded in the ancient writings, in Sanskrit literature; right up to almost the 17th century, you get very interesting documents, referring to the importance of science, read chemistry, physics, mostly mathematics, astronomy, and he knew this had to be combined to sort of, uh, allow the Indian genius to, to sprout, and, uh, when he become prime minister, he gave the highest importance to scientific development.

WHAT WERE HIS VIEWS ON NUCLEAR ENERGY?

From the amount of information available, there was enough to see that it could be very useful... in the development of power, though at that time, it had not really been shown that useful power can be obtained. But I think he looked upon it as a thres... a springboard, for modern technology, to get out of the old system, and jump several centuries, and come into a new era, in which one could get the benefit of these new discoveries, as fast as possible.

WHAT WAS IT LIKE BEING A YOUNG NUCLEAR SCIENTIST AT THAT TIME?

Well... not only being a nuclear scientist, just being young gives you enough scope to be enthusiastic on practically everything, impatient on most things... and it's, I must say, it was quite a remarkable period of Indian history... when a lot of things that were modern entered our lives in a very short span of time. Uh... but of course the difficulties came, financial difficulties, industrial problems, getting things... but I must also add that when you did ask me... of how Pandit Nehru looked at the development of science in India, I think he had, at the back of his mind, that we should become as self-reliant as possible. And that basis of self-reliance shows itself in all our subsequent developments. He thought we were a big country with a big population, and we should show our... our, our strength and development, in getting maximum use of the people, to do new things, and develop new technologies.

COULD YOU JUST REPEAT THAT PHRASE THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT INDIA NOT MISSING OUT ON THE NEXT INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION?

I do not know whether I can attribute that phrase to him, but it has been subsequently used... because whenever large sums of money are spent by a government, the economists get into the... into the fray, and they use the word "industrial revolution" very often, and probably fit it in, to explain the atmosphere of the times.

DID INDIA PARTICIPATE IN ATOMS FOR PEACE? DID INDIA BENEFIT FROM IT?

I would say that the first Atoms for Peace conference held in Geneva was a scientific epoch-making event. For one thing, never in the history of mankind so much information on modern technology, modern science was... let loose, to the public, because there was so much secrecy involved previously... and, uh, so much connected with the war, but that science could do so much for people... and, uh, how much had already been done, suddenly came out, in almost a flood, a torrent of literature, and for the first time, scientists from all parts of the world began to say hello to one another. So I think... it was an epoch-making event. But how did India benefit... it's true, we were at the beginnings of our, uh, scientific endeavors in the large... there was science in the small, but science in the large. But it's remarkable, when you look at even the papers there... we contributed, for instance, I recall myself publishing a paper on, uh, on the... the fusion constants of beryllium oxide, which can be used as a moderator, which is a very fancy material, and we had to develop new techniques to measure these quantities, and all that brought in a new enthusiasm... that we could contribute even at the forefront of scientific, uh, development, even as early as 1955.

WHAT WAS DR. BHABHA'S CONTRIBUTION AT THESE CONFERENCES?

Well, Dr. Bhabha's contribution to India... is so deep, and so... uh... so... indescribably vast, that to merely say that he contributed to the conference, would be a very small part of his personality. But... I think but for him, the 1955 Geneva Conference would not have been a success, because he played the role of an intermediary as president of the conference, between the Eastern groups of scientists, all distinguished people, and the Western groups of course were known, for a long time, for their eminence. And, he brought about an atmosphere... in which there was a more free exchange of information than could have been without his, uh, deep knowledge, personality, and uh, charm.

HOW DID DR. BHABHA CONTRIBUTE TO THE INDIAN ATOMIC ENERGY PROGRAM?

Well, there are many ways he broke the barrier, shall I say, to get into the modern age. The first was to collect scientists, keep them en-, enthused. And... give the necessary atmosphere for them to do research. The second was his own deep knowledge of physics; he was a very good physicist, and he had, uh, some training in engineering earlier; but if you ask me what is the... most important thing he did, was to bring about a change in the administration for science. That has... made a tremendous difference between this organization and several others. He broke all those old methods... the colonial methods, of dealing with scientists, not simply as, uh, administrators in some district, but as... very important people. He gave them a... a new feeling of being wanted, and that they could play a part in the development of the country.

HOW MUCH WAS INDIA DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AT THIS POINT?

Well... as I told you, while Pandit was very keen that India should develop a self-sufficiency in all its aspects, he was certainly very keen that... we should get the assistance of friendly countries, wherever possible. And in the early days... when the first reactor went into operation, it's the United Kingdom which loaned us the fuel. Of course, now we make our own fuel, but in those days... I'm talking nineteen four, fifty-four, fifty-five... then later we had the Canadians give us a lot of assistance, and there was a lot of enthusiasm. Unfortunately, misunderstandings–

LET'S JUST SET IT IN THAT TIME FRAME. WE'll COME TO THAT LATER. WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE DID INDIA HAVE IN THE EARLY DAYS FROM OVERSEAS?

Well, we had chances of being able to go to laboratories, to see the work there, to take part in it, send teams for training, and as I told you, in Canada, a lot of people went for operator training, science training... and, uh, attendance at conferences were very frequent...

COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THE CANADIAN AND BRITISH ASSISTANCE...?

The British assistance was not very much, except that they gave the fuel, and our, um, we had a little competition, a small one, between a reactor being built in the United Kingdom, and ourselves, and we wanted to beat them, as to which reactor would go critical first, and ours went critical one month earlier. Though the fuel was theirs, we built the rest of all the things here. Now this was a very good exercise in our development, because... the control system, the cooling system, everything was built in India as early as 1954, and that made a big difference to our work. But with the Canadians, the connection was deeper, and we had hoped... that it would be a long connection, because we were also building heavy-water, natural uranium reactors... eventually, making the fuel ourselves; and, uh, there was a... excellent rapport. But then, it broke, and that's a subsequent part of our history.

CAN YOU RECALL WHY THE DECISION WAS TAKEN IN 1958 TO BUILD A REPROCESSING FACILITY IN TROMBAY?

Well, reprocessing is a part of the fuel cycle... of any atomic energy program. And in those days, it was quite clear... that if you produced plutonium in your reactors, especially heavy water and natural uranium reactors, you should collect them back again, and use it, and that would give economic benefits. That was one thing. And the second thing is... that it has, it's a, what is left over is waste, and you can't put plutonium as waste. And, uh, in those days, the idea of, of... burying fuel with plutonium didn't occur to anybody. And... we thought, well, we should have the fuel, entire knowledge of the fuel cycle, and research was done for, uh, developing plutonium chemistry, and the first plutonium plant was, was built.

LET'S JUST DO THAT AGAIN, A LITTLE BRIEFER.

Well, India needed a reprocessing plant because it was interested in the entire fuel cycle, India was interested in reprocessing of spent fuel, for recovery of plutonium, because it was interested in the... entire fuel cycle, as it would improve the economics of nuclear power. I may add there, that at that time it was big, but we wanted to use that plutonium in fast breeder reactors, and for breeding, using plutonium to breed in thorium, which is, we have plenty in this country, was vaguely mentioned in many, various reports, and all this is a part of our need for reprocessing, which is now, of course, in actual use.

WHAT ARE YOUR RECOLLECTIONS OF THE CYRUS REACTOR AT TROMBAY?

Oh, I remember it very well. I'm talking of the formal opening; the criticality was some days earlier; but, if I recall, while it was a very gala opening, the prime minister was present, it was not what I'd call the most successful of the openings. Because the reactor was not functioning. It developed problems of a very specific nature, which even the Canadians were not aware of. It's a very interesting, technical point, which I don't mind mentioning it, how technical it is. It is because the coolant water would develop a kind of bacterial clogging, only available in our water, and this stopped the reactor from going to full power. So when... the opening ceremony was on, the reactor was not functioning. But there was another tiny reactor called Zarina, which was built about the same time, and that was functioning, so I remember one of the delegates from Canada saying, "Oh, it is Zarina we are celebrating, not Cyrus," and so... that was the first thing, and the other was at the actual ceremony, we had put a pandal, as they're called in India, a place where the... prime minister, everybody sits, and an unusually strong wind developed, and it tore all the, the, the, the, the cloth and the... decorations to pieces. Fortunately the structure was steel, and it stayed. And I've never seen that happen again; I didn't realize how powerful the wind could be, but this happened at the actual speech-making ceremonies.

LET'S JUST GO OVER THAT AGAIN....

CAN YOU TELL ME YOUR RECOLLECTIONS OF THE OPENING OF THE CYRUS REACTOR? WAS THERE ANYTHING STRANGE ABOUT THE EVENT?

The opening of the Cyrus reactor was a gala event, because it was a big reactor built in a developing country with this foreign assistance. And so everything had prepared in a very big way. But it actually happened on that day the reactor was not functioning for a very curious technical reason. Because it would not have happened in Canada, but it happened in India. And that is because some bacterial growth was developing in the hot, more hot waters of this region. And so the cooling couldn't be carried on, and the reactor had to be shut down. So we were celebrating the opening of a reactor when it was not quite operating. But fortunately there was a zero-energy reactor operating just across on the same day which went critical. And so people said, Ah, we are celebrating the small reactor, though the function was meant for the bigger reactor.

THIS EARLY PERIOD, WAS IT A PERIOD OF TREMENDOUS TRIUMPH? HOW DID IT FEEL AS A SCIENTIST IN WORKING ON THE INDIAN PROGRAM AT THIS EARLY TIME?

Oh, there is no question that the enthusiasm was at its highest. Because everything we did was new, and there were lots of people coming and joining us in the, in the development of atomic energy; it was novel; it was exciting; it was very modern. And there's no question that it was at the peak period of enthusiasm.

LET'S MOVE TO THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.

Oh, that's an old story. You will recall that before non-proliferation there was the agency safeguard system. And this was discussed at great length in the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, of whether we should even sign the safeguard system. Because it was a policy of the government of India that there should be no discrimination between country and country. And if one set of countries say, "Oh, we have weapon, we can do what we want," this we thought was not good for the future of the world. But we accepted safeguards on the basis that one day the more advanced countries, or the so-called weapon countries, would come down, stop testing, and gradually move into disarmament. Unfortunately this has not happened. They have been increasing...

I'M SORRY, CAN I JUST PUT YOU IN THE TIME FRAME? IN THE '60s, THE LATE '60s, INDIA DECIDED NOT TO SIGN. WHAT WERE THE REASONS AT THAT TIME?

Well, I have to give the previous history of it, because the NPT comes out of agency safeguards. And it was in the agency safeguards that we said that we will only sign the safeguards in the hope that all countries will participate after a few years. This is usually forgotten, and that's why I bring it to your attention. Then, instead of all par, countries participating in this, a new thing was started called the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the basis that imports to certain countries will stop if they don't sign NPT. So this was a threat to countries which just did not have the capability even. And so the situation became worse. And Indian opinion was that countries were forcing their will on other sovereign countries, which they had no right. And that's why NPT was not signed. Because once we signed the safeguard conditions, and there are many reactors on the, agency safeguards, which had been operating that way for a long time. And it is made out as though India has not contributed to non-proliferation at all, which is a lot of nonsense. We have been contributing to non-proliferation in more than one way, and more effectively perhaps than many others. But... it happens that they keep producing new treaties to make it more difficult for countries with a policy to follow.

LET ME JUST GO OVER AS A SEPARATE POINT, WHY WAS THE IDEA OF FULL-SCOPE SAFEGUARDS SO UNACCEPTABLE TO INDIA? THIS IS AT THE TIME OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY.

We objected to both non-proliferation. We objected to non-proliferation and full-scope safeguards because it contained things which would definitely affect national sovereignty. For one thing...

IF YOU COULD REPEAT THAT EXACTLY AS YOU HAD IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

We ob- objected to Non-Proliferation Treaty and full-scope safeguards mainly because they come in the way of national sovereignty. If you ask me why, these treaties propose that if you don't sign the treaty, even conventional things will not be available to us, like pumps, heat exchangers, and many little things connected with the reactor. We have always agreed that safeguards should apply to sensitive materials, like plutonium, safeguard uh, heavy water.

WHY WERE SAFEGUARDS, THE IDEA OF FULL-SCOPE SAFEGUARDS, WHY WERE THEY SO UNACCEPTABLE TO INDIA AT THIS TIME?

India had strongly objected to the NPT and safeguard mainly because it came in the way of national sovereignty. The reason being that... embargo was being placed on even conventional equipment, like pumps, heavy...

IT WAS A GOOD POINT ABOUT NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY, AND THAT'S THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT.

India was against Non-Proliferation Treaty and the full scope safeguard mainly because it was against many aspects of national sovereignty. For instance, these treaties provided for an embargo on even conventional equipment, like pumps, heat exchangers, and so forth. And there were many lists prepared by so-called clubs, like the London Club, and uh, various...and so forth, which gave a clue to, to vendors that they should get their government's permission, and they can be stopped in any manner they wish. We had always believed that safeguards should be only on sensitive materials, and that is like heavy water, enriched material, and so forth. But to apply to all sorts of things smacked a little bit of colonialism.

WOULD NPT HAVE HAMPERED THE INDIAN PROGRAM? WAS THIS A CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME?

NPT hampered the Indian program to the extent that it delayed the completion of many reactors. But I am glad to say that it has not really in fact hampered the Indian program.

WHY AND HOW WAS THE DECISION TAKEN TO EXPLODE A PEACEFUL NUCLEAR DEVICE IN 1974? WERE YOU PART OF THAT? WERE YOU PRIVY TO THE DECISION?

Well, I was not only, in a sense, privy to the decision, but I took part in it, in the experiment, as we called it. For one thing, if you look at the literature in 1974 and earlier, both the Soviet Union and the United States, and Western countries, were full of praise for the possibilities of how PNEs could be used for peaceful purposes, like enhancement of oil, making big holes in the ground, and so forth, and even turning rivers. And so it was a part of the program to develop this technology. And uh, I have seen many exhibitions, even in 1958 Geneva Conference on the Plowshare Program and its possibilities. But it's only after we did the experiment a lot of papers came about how it is impossible, it's uneconomic and so forth. That's all I have to say about it.

WHY ARE YOU DESCRIBED AS THE MIDWIFE OF THE INDIAN BOMB? THAT'S HOW YOU'VE BEEN DESCRIBED IN LITERATURE.

Well, I don't know how the comparison comes because I do not quite sure of the functions of a midwife. But all that I know was I took part in the program and led the group.

CAN YOU JUST DESCRIBE YOUR ROLE, IS WHAT I'M REALLY GETTING AT?

Well, I, I was in charge of the group which did the experiment, overall charge of the group. That's all.

DO YOU MIND ANSWERING A FEW MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TEST?

Well, I think I've said enough.

OK. I JUST WONDERED IF, I MEAN, IT WAS A MOMENT OF GREAT PRIDE, I UNDERSTAND, FOR INDIA AS A WHOLE.

It's just part of the total pride of having taken part in modern technology in all aspects.

AND THE OTHER THING IS PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK, WELL, WHY HAVEN'T THERE BEEN MORE FOLLOW-UP TESTS?

That's a governmental decision.

WHAT WERE INDIA'S ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT THIS STAGE IN THE EARLY '70s?

But if I can still go back to that question. I think India has done more for non-proliferation by not doing any experiments than any other country in the world. That's not fully appreciated. It's almost, 1974 makes almost 12 years. And we have not carried out expl... uh, any explosions. And that itself is an indication of our interest in non-proliferation.

WHAT WERE INDIA'S ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AT THIS STAGE? IN THE EARLY '70s?

Oh, our production of energy for a country like this was abysmally dismal. If I can use that expression. Our uh, hydro sources were not fully developed, I'm talking of the early fifties and sixties. And development of hydro sources is a long-term affair, because you have to build big dams, they were multi-purpose projects. Our coal is restricted, and the location are very specific. And to come to the industrial centers gets very expensive. And so we needed a lot of power. And I think there is a famous statement of Bhabha which said that no power is more expensive than no power. And I think that still holds.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE WAS SUCH AN EMPHASIS ON PLUTONIUM AND FAST BREEDER REACTORS?

Oh, very much so. Our interest in, in breeder reactors is fully justified, and we are the only country who should be interested of all other countries. And that is because we have so much thorium in the c... in our country, and you can pick up the thoriumm with your hands. Unlike uranium, which you have to dig. And if that thorium can be converted by breeding into uranium-233, our fuel problems will be solved to a great extent. And breeding in thorium is the first essential basis of our atomic energy development program, and we will continue to do it.

WHAT IMPACT DID PRESIDENT CARTER'S POLICIES HAVE ON, ON THE INDIAN PROGRAM? SPECIFICALLY THE NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY, HIS OWN NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION ACT?

I'm afraid that's a question I cannot answer except in what has happened subsequently. If there was a feeling that there should be non-proliferation in the world, then all big countries should have taken part at least in the suspension of tests, which they have not done.

CAN YOU TELL ME ANYTHING ABOUT THE TARAPUR BUSINESS? YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE INVOLVED WITH IT.

Yes. I am fully aware of it, but the main thing we should be happy about is the Tarapur reactors are working very well, and they are delivering power even as of today to the (...) and (...) grids.

YOU DON'T WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW THINGS WERE AT THE TIME?

Well, there are a lot of obsolete discussions.

YOU THINK IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE?

It's counterproductive.

OK. THE NUCLEAR SUPPLIERS GROUP, WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THAT ORGANIZATION?

Well, as I said, the nuclear suppliers formed themselves into clubs. So I don't like clubs of this type. And I even use a somewhat rough word. I call them colonial. I think there are things like atomic energy agencies and all that which look after such matters. But formation of little clubs by companies is not a good thing.

WAS THAT YOUR FEELING AT THE TIME?

That's my feeling now.

OK. CAN YOU REMEMBER AT THE TIME? COULD YOU COMMENT ON AT THE TIME?

Oh, at the time very... absolutely the same.

AND THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL CYCLE EVALUATION, HOW DID YOU REACT...

I don't think they're all very important in the context that there were simply discussions being held for the sake of discussions, but not to get the, the real benefit of non-proliferation.

I WAS GOING TO SAY, DID YOU THINK THEY WERE BARKING UP THE RIGHT TREE? OR WAS THIS THE UH…

Well, you can keep things going by making people talk. If you want non-proliferation, you have to stop testing in the first instance, Then the steps will begin to follow.

DO YOU THINK PROLIFERATION CAN BE CONTROLLED AS SUCH?

Provided all countries agree.

I WAS GETTING AT THE POINT THAT PEOPLE HAVE SAID THAT CARTER DENIED TECHNICAL ACCESS AND IN FACT YOU CAN'T STOP A COUNTRY, IF A COUNTRY WANTS TO BUILD BOMBS OR BUILD WEAPONS.

Well, purely talking historically, this is what they said of the Soviet Union in the '40s; they said the same thing of China later; and it's been on and on. So I, I think I don't agree with that philosophy.

WHAT WAS YOUR REACTION TO THE NEWS IN THE LATE '70s THAT PAKISTAN WAS EMBARKING ON AN ENRICHMENT PROGRAM? HOW SERIOUSLY DID YOU TAKE THE PAKISTAN DEVELOPMENT?

I don't know very much about that program. And I know that most people, given the chance, in the world can develop their technologies, sooner or later, depending on how much industrial development there is, or how much assistance they get from other countries. So wh— what we just understood that they were interested in enrichment, and that's all the comment I have to make.

DO YOU THINK YOU COULD COMMENT ON THE STATUS OF THE PAKISTAN PROGRAM?

I don't know enough about the program. I don't know enough about it.

NO? AN OBVIOUS QUESTION IS, DO YOU THINK PAKISTAN HAS THE BOMB?

Well, from the newspapers it seems that they are very keen, or some people in that country are very keen, but I don't know what their policy is.

WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT PROGRAM IN INDIA?

The goals of the present program in India are quite clear. In the smaller but moneymaking possibilities, the use of isotopes in industry, agriculture, and medicine is unbelievable, especially in agriculture in producing new mutants, and in industry where they need it all the time. But we are so short of power that even if we developed all our oil resources, all our coal resources, all our hydro resources, we'd be so short of power. So there's no question of this or that. You have to develop nuclear power, in a very big way.

THERE'RE PEOPLE, CERTAINLY IN AMERICA, WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PLUTONIUM THAT'S SITTING IN STOCKPILES ALL OVER THE WORLD, INCLUDING, AND THEY ALWAYS CITE, INDIA AS AN EXAMPLE. BECAUSE THIS MIGHT BE AN EASY ACCESS TO TERRORISTS. WHAT'S YOUR ANSWER TO THAT?

Well, we have always planned that our plutonium should be burned in the reactors or in a fast reactor... To mix it with eh, terrorism is another complication which I have no, no expert to, to talk about.

COULD YOU JUST, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN AGAIN THAT YOU'RE USING YOUR PLUTONIUM? I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST SITTING AROUND...OK.

Well, I think a lot of plutonium was used in the fast reactor. That is used, in our fast reactor in Kalpakkam. And we plan to put more fast reactors up.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO PEOPLE, THESE CONCERN GROUPS?

It's impossible to answer all these groups. Because we never know— I know of groups where whatever you tell them they won't believe you. They have made up their minds.

WELL, COULD YOU TRY AND JUST EXPLAIN?

No. I have no further comment on that.

OK. I THINK THE FIRST TIME WAS... AND REALLY, IS PROLIFERATION SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED? AND HOW DO YOU SEE THE NEXT TEN YEARS?

Proliferation is a political problem. If the political will is there, I'm sure it's possible. I, after being in the business for nearly 40 years, I'm quite sure it can be done. But it's part of a bigger problem. It's part of disarmament, it's a part of um, of politics. It's not a technical problem, and I am essentially a technical man.

WHEN YOU SAY PROLIFERATION DO YOU MEAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS SPREAD? OR DO YOU MEAN NON-PROLIFERATION?

I meant the spread of nuclear weapons.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST CLARIFY THAT JUST ONE MORE TIME?

When I say proliferation, it is the spread of nuclear weapons.

WHAT IS THE TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO MAKE A BOMB, AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM THAT USED TO GENERATE ELECTRIC POWER?

Well, I had thought this question would find its answers in the textbooks, but if I can clarify. It's true, the same materials are used, whether it's a power generator or a... explosive device. But, it's only the, the nuclear part which is common. The materials that go into it. The rest... are entirely different, because in one case, like nuclear power, your main interest is to see that the heat is generated and extracted in a steady way, whereas the other one, you optimize for an explosion. But that is... not the thing that's required for a weapon. A weapon requires many other things, like delivery systems, the accuracy of the delivery, the miniaturization… so, if you take overall, they're entirely different. They may have a small common overlap, in the base of the material type, but otherwise they're entirely different.

WHAT ARE THE PHYSICS REQUIRED FOR THE BOMB DEVELOPMENT?

The physics is the same physics for both, except that you... control one, and the other one you don't control, you, you optimize it for a... explosion.

TO A LAYMAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THAT CONTROL WORKS... THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WEAPONS SYSTEMS?

As I said, a weapon requires a delivery. A weapon requires that it must go with accuracy, otherwise it should not fall in your own face... or... that's the expression and, and, and destroy you all wherever you are. So all these things require a lot of... and I think that is more, more difficult and more important than just the material which is common to both.

WHAT WAS YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE TEST IN 1974?

Well, I don't know, because it was a group of people; I could take decisions of, uh, which should go where, and where the...

NO, I MEAN... WHAT WAS YOUR ROLE THEN?

Well, I... officially I was the leader of the team. That's good enough. That means if it had not, uh, gone off, my...

CAN YOU TELL ME ANY LITTLE ANECDOTES?

Oh, I've... had so many anecdotes which are even published in the, in the...

CHOOSE ONE.

Well, I don't know, you'll probably call me facetious... and that is... when the... explosion took place, we were watching from the distance of four kilometers away, and, uh, we saw the ground going up and coming down, and we thought, "Well, that is it." But when we were coming down the ladder from a little platform which we were looking from, the shock wave came and nearly threw me off the ladder, and I should have known better that the shock wave could take some time to come. Well, of course, that was not in the confirmation of the thing. But... when we went to look for radioactivity everywhere, there was no activity whatever. And we searched and searched because all the activity was well contained. But what surprised us was, there was a crow, dead, but completely unharmed physically. So, the only explanation we could give was that the ground must have lifted so rapidly, and the crow must have had a heart attack, but it was dead.

HOW DID YOU FEEL AT THE TIME ABOUT THESE TESTS?

Oh, it's too long ago now.