Yeah, one of the things that I find in my job through the research in my book is that you know, India's relationship with the global nonproliferation regime is, is very stable in the sense that India is opposed to it, just like it was during the time period of my research, and the arguments as to why India is opposed to it and shall remain in the future going forward, are essentially the same that were given in the 1960s, it was the same set of arguments provided during the 1998 nuclear tests, same set of arguments in 2008, during the US-India civil nuclear agreement. So I find that that India's nuclear program, you know, has has a set of milestones as opposed to breaks or, or specific, specific turning points, obviously, there was an explosion in 74, and then five nuclear weapon tests in 1998, I would consider them set of milestones in in this long process. And I don't see a lot of change in the present time, I see more continuity. And in the context of the 21st century, I would say India's nuclear program is still very much to all us. One of the things that India was expected to do, because of the 2008, US-India civil nuclear agreement was separate civilian and military facilities, which to an extent it did but not fully. So from a nonproliferation perspective, you know, folks in Vienna or Washington, DC, looking at India's nuclear program, they still consider the whole nuclear enterprise of India's, you know, very confusing, ambiguous, very difficult to access. And India has maintained a rather similar position of opposition to the regime on the basis of sovereignty. And it's, it's its belief that the regime functions on nuclear apartheid. That's what Indian policymakers have said throughout the 60s, in some ways still today.