Then you want India to detonate a fusion weapon.
Not at all but India itself claimed to have tested a fusion weapon in the 1990s and declared it a success along a series of fission tests that occurred with the supposed fusion test. While seismology show the yield was around what was declared, it's impossible to say what the fusion yield was if any because the fission detonations were done with it during that time.
There was much debate and suggestions from a Pakistani nuclear physicist say the fusion weapon failed. No one has backed up India's claim except to say that it's possible India managed a fusion weapon.
Detonating at least one in a test is absolutely the minimum to build simulation models out of. Without even a test which was at best, admitted and mentioned by India's own nuclear physicist (probably in cover) that the fusion yield was lower than expected. It may have been lower to zero as in failed to detonate.
Anyway none of this is clear and building a model out of a failed or even mucked and unexpected yield detonation is not possible. At least not possible to build a good model that can be verified. Since India has not detonated another attempt after that, it's close to impossible for it to have good models. This throws into question India's fusion weapon ability. Particularly when India never really considered nuclear arms to be a grand necessity unlike US, China, Soviet Union/Russia who faced existential nuclear threats from each other.
India only has to have nuclear arms (and with a no first use as well) just in case of nuclear attack from Pakistan. There was no pressing need and even now with increased India China enmity, there is still no real need since both have no desire to pollute the region with fallout and both have no first use. If India had a similar level of necessity to e.g. China, then it makes more sense for them to have persisted with developing a thermonuclear weapon and detonating several to build good models out of.