Delete your duplicate posts.
BTW,
1974 was a small cracker.
But if you know 1998, there were 5 nuclear tests together and that even underground, so some yield absorbed by ground and simultaneous tests created problem in calculating actual yield.
This was explained in every report (including yours).
Later by surveying, yield was suggested at least 35 KT.
And India has made enormous progress in nuclear tech from then.
Now, our indigenuity,
Off topic: Your country is ahead even us in copying or even stealing weapons. Don't give us that metaphor so.
On topic:
If Indian Nuclear wasn't indigenous then, how could it built Thorium based or FBRs(a technology generally not shared).
Indians scientists barely could do any test to ensure reliability of tests.
On the other hand, from using nuclear tech in medical to astrophysics, particle study(A neutrino reactor also is being inaugurated this year).
In miniaturizing reactor to other all things, India isn't much behind P5 unlike Pak or N. Korea(in fact their tech is stolen). US also couldn't detect our recent missile test.
Moreover, India could be world's third country to send a nuclear powered space mission (cancelled due to lack of time, will be in successor Cdy-3) and that's before China.
So, it's completely nonsense to estimate Indian Capabilities only over nuclear tests (which India can't even do because of sanctions).
Think about the implication if the Indian atomic bomb was indigenous.
You are saying Indian scientists are not as smart as American, Russian, or Chinese scientists. The British and French have admitted receiving US help on their nuclear weapons, so they don't really count.
For the US, Russia, and China, the hydrogen bomb followed the atomic bomb no later than about five years.
It's been 42 years for India. (2016 - 1974 = 42 years)
You've got a problem.
Either you accept the Indian atomic bomb was not indigenous and the blueprint was given to India. There was a story in BusinessWeek during the 1980s alleging that Pakistan received an early version Chinese atomic bomb design from the 1960s.
Otherwise, you'll have a very hard time explaining why brilliant Indian nuclear scientists are not as smart as Americans, Russians, or Chinese.
I picked the more logical choice. The Indian blueprint was given by another country.
In contrast, you're basically claiming Indian scientists are not as smart and can't make the leap to thermonuclear weapons.
Choose your poison.
----------
By the way, I think the North Korean bomb is probably an old Chinese design. The North Koreans either received the blueprints directly from China decades ago or they bartered for it from Pakistan.
Like India and Pakistan, North Korea also can't build a hydrogen bomb (after one decade).
History has shown that if your scientists are smart enough to design and build an atomic bomb, it takes five years or less to build a hydrogen bomb. Failure to build a hydrogen bomb after 10 (in North Korea's case) or 42 years (in India's case) strongly hints at a non-native origin of a country's atomic bomb.
Logic: Since you never designed the original atomic bomb, it is logical that you can't design the successor hydrogen bomb.
You cannot walk in the American, Russian, and Chinese footsteps because you don't have the experience from designing an atomic bomb.
A technician can build an atomic bomb from a blueprint that is provided to his country. A technician cannot design a more-sophisticated hydrogen bomb.
A scientist that built his own atomic bomb can always build a hydrogen bomb with a few years' of effort. This was true for the United States, Russia, and China.
