The only thing is that 7.62x39 is not better than 5.56x45N.If the AK203 is better than the INSAS and 7.62x39 is better than 5.56x45 , then for the moment, untill we do equip our strike corps with 7.62NATO rifles, i think its fine.
Also, anything on the cost of rifles yet to be manufactured at Amethi?
7.62x39 is different , it can do things that the 5.56 cannot and vice versa, key point being different is not always better. And a clue lies in the SF brandishing those Tavor's and M4's, all chambered in 5.56 Nato.
Now about the 7.62x51N, I am a bit ambivalent about it. Yes it has the stopping power, it has the range and it has the versatility; but it is a horrible round for use in automatic fire. Another aspect is, 7.62x 51N needs quite a bit of shooting discipline, it's heavy, and thus will have weight penalty. For DMR and MMG/LMG operators it's well and good, but in my opinion positioning a full size rifle round in a assault rifle role, defeats the purpose of an assault rifle which is meant to be chambered in an intermediate cartridge.
The reason I keep yapping about these three cartridges, is because I have had the opportunity to practice with all three of them, and my own conclusion is 5.56x45 nato has the right mix of accuracy, energy, and ease of use among the three cartridges.
I have shot the 6.5 gren although I don't own one yet to have any definitive remarks on it's shooting characteristics. Indian Army went away from the 7.62 nato round chambered FAL, and took a pragmatic step of introducing a new round in 5.56Nato, going back to 7.62x51 would be odd at this point. I really hope we havent seen the last of 6.5gren/6.8spc yet.