I think the Indians could do this, but what some in an agency say and what they do are of course different thing.

I think a country which simply had a launch pad could do it
at "zero cost".
It's always been a political thing rather a matter of a country's "resources".
I think without being particularly outstanding and so something within the ability of a govt agency; India could easily land crew on the lunar surface for less than 1 billion dollars and get it done safely within 4 years time period.

On the topic of less than 1 billion dollars:
I wrote this down and was going make a separate but it
sort of explains what I mean by zero cost:

Back in the olden times, when posters posted at MSNBC space board,
and when the Prospector orbited the Moon, I posted about an idea
which I called, water in orbit.

I have mentioned the idea a number of times since that time, but it's been awhile since I bothered to do this.

The idea is quite simple, the US govt [or some other entity which wants to hand out money] should offer to buy water test payloads. Or, payloads of water which are delivered to orbit.
The purpose of doing this are many- but none of reasons have much to do with the govt needing or wanting this water in orbit for it's own use.
One purpose is to lower the cost launching anything into space.
This also means that one could expect the price of launching anything
in space to lower.

And this means that though the govt could spend 1/2 billion dollars
buying these water payloads, it could end up saving as much or significantly more in terms of what spends on launching future payloads [satellites, landers, or manned related missions]. But before I explain exactly how it could save money, I will first describe what "water in orbit" is.

Water in orbit could be said to be sort of like a prize. Such as like the Google Lunar X prize, or the Ansari X Prize.
The US govt [or whoever] puts 1/2 billion dollars in some kind of escrow account, so that once a company [a party] has delivered the water payload to orbit, they will then get paid without much delay. But unlike a prize, there isn't a first place or second place winner. Though there is a limit of the total money paid out. The limit could be 100 or 200 tons of water delivered. The parties who put the payload
into orbit can have any size payload they wish- though obviously not more than 100 or 200 tons.

So a party could for example deliver a water payload of 1 or 5 tons
or 50 tons. And they can keep on delivering these smaller payloads until the limit of 100 or 200 tons is reached. So, to be clear, the 100 or 200 tons is an accumulation of all parties which are delivering water payloads.

The next important aspect is how much does the govt pay per lb of water payload.
I would suggest that the govt offer to pay $500 per lb.
I think this is a high enough price to pay. But to simply aviod the argument that this is too low of a price to pay, let's say they decide to pay $1000 per lb.
And btw, I think paying $2000 per lb or more, would be "wrong" and sort of miss the whole point of this idea.
And just to argue a bit about offering $500 per lb- if no one delivers at this price, it's not costing the govt anything to offer to buy it at this price. But anyhow, let's say the offer is at $1000 per lb.

So, $1000 per lb, or $2 million per ton. So if it's 100 tons the total this cost the govt 200 million dollar + some administration costs. Or 200 tons for $400 million.
Now, $400 million is less than 1/2 billion, but for once let's do "something" under budget:)
Nor, on more serious note, I do underestimate the ability of a govt to waste a lot of money on "some" administration costs.

Ok, more details:
Next thing is where in orbit?
There are a number of places it could be.
I would prefer about 300 km orbit at 0 inclination.
But this is a political matter to some extent, and the US govt
might think a 28 inclination is better.
But as far as this idea goes, it should be an orbit which doesn't decay and re-enter the atmosphere in less than say, 5 years.
And another part of this idea is that the payloads should be delivered to the same location [same orbital height, inclination and within a mile or so of one another].
Now, I'm focusing on LEO as a location, but one could use this general idea for different locations, such as high earth orbit, Lunar orbit, L points, Mars orbit, Lunar surface, Mars surface, and/or etc.

Now, why should the govt spend 1/2 billion dollars on this.
The main reason is because it's cheap and to save money.
[lots & lots of money]
You could ask, when has the govt ever been interested in doing
something which is cheap and wanted to save money?

I understand that it could "look" expensive and something
which could seem to be silly. And there could all kinds of ways spinning
this, that would make it seem politically dangerous thing to do. And haven't even got to the part which is reckless in this regard. But I not going to spend much time on how to politically sell it- they could pretend they are wild and crazy guys, as far as I care.

One way it saves money, is it can be a water test payload. As far as
the payload is concerned, it doesn't matter if the rocket explodes
on the pad. If instead it was 100 million dollar satellite, *someone*
would pay for that lost of a payload. If it's insured, then it's
paid for by high insurance rates. And one is simply silly to assume that because something is insured there is no cost involved. But the reason one has such things as "test payloads" is because the risk is such that it's not "worth" trying to insure it.

Now, there other things one could do, you offer a free or cheap price for the payload- student project, university project, or NASA
that will take the risk for whatever the reason- and after all the tax payer pays for it, if the launch fails.

So if you have 10 launches which have 25% chance of failure and they have a payload worth 100 million on them- *someone* is losing 250 million just in payload cost. The US govt has lost billions of dollars worth of satellites because the rockets have failed- so the tax payer has spent billions of dollar on these satellites because
of launch failure.
And the tax payer will in the future will spend billions of dollars because of launch failure.
In addition billions of dollars are spent buying insurance on payloads.

So, if you actually reduce the chance of losing satellites [in which one satellite could cost more 1/2 billion dollars] and if you can lower the cost of insurance cost, because launchers are more "proven" this savings alone could pay for the 1/2 billion dollar ticket price of the
"water in orbit" program. BUT this is barely scratching the surface in terms the "water in orbit" being cost effective.

Now, you might ask, if 100 or 200 tons is worth it, why not 1000 or 10,000 tons?
Answer is because the govt will not need to do this- it won't pay for all the tonnage over the 100 or 200 tons- it "gets it" for free- and it really is a free lunch.
But I haven't got to explaining that part yet.

Another thing about launch failure is lost time. Now, the govt doesn't care much about wasting time- it, in a sense "makes money" by wasting time.
It's "we can't afford it now because we don't have enough money in the budget, so next year we'll get more money so we can afford
it, then".
This for example, is what NASA is currently doing with it's Manned Lunar program, NASA will end up spending 100 billion or more on the Lunar Manned mission- and without all this delay it's something that should cost less than 20 billion IF it didn't "require" decades to do, and IF the major concern wasn't *seen* as maintaining this job's program called NASA.
So, the govt operates in different Universe and different rules, than reality, but the private sector doesn't [unless it's working for the govt- particularly if it's cost plus].
So, for the private sector it loses money wasting time. So if the satellite fails to get to orbit, the cost of the satellite could be fairly insignificant compared to loss of revenue from not having the satellite in orbit. With more dependable launchers it saves time/money for the private sector, and saves money for the govt [even though it doesn't care as much about saving time]. Now, of course on an individual level
the govt employee isn't happy if years of life work blows ups- the project might canceled, the person may have to retire before the mission finally gets flown, etc.

Now, let's talk about the guys who make the rockets.
The "water in orbit" is mostly about helping the launch companies.
It will pay them to make new and better rockets and is mostly
about lowering the costs of risk. I mostly have in mind to help
start up launch companies, but I wouldn't exclude the big companies
from using the program. It should be open to any rocket company for
any reason they want to do it. One of the points of it, is less paperwork and time. Deliver the payload. Get paid.

Politically, the US govt might want to limit it to American companies.
Whatever. I love America. Go America. But it's not something required
as far as I'm concerned. And this would probably would hurt America
companies- but that's politics. No politics, no Buck Rogers.

Actually, I lied, it isn't mostly about launch companies, it's mostly
about mining water in Space, it's secondarily about launch companies.
But I probably won't have time to get to the mining water in space
part.
Trying to speed this up.
You got 200 tons of water in orbit at 28 inclination and 300 km.
The govt spent 1/2 billion dollars to do this.
How much is that water in orbit worth?
Well, it's probably worth about $500 per lb- remember I said
the govt should pay $500 per lb. But, oh, no you had to pay a $1000
per lb.
It doesn't matter, paying $1000 per lb is still cheap.
But it's still only worth about $500 per lb- no matter what the Govt paid for it.

And what is worse, is I want the govt to give away that water.

Or said differently, I want the govt to pay a company in the currency
of the water in orbit, in order to have them build something and launch it to that orbit. And whatever this thing is, it must be able to convert
the water into rocket fuel, specifically LH2&LOX. And if they do this
they get all the water.

So, it's sort of another prize.

Any company that wants that water can have it, if they put something in orbit that can make rocket fuel. So that company would be paid in water currency [worth $1 million per ton, so $200 million in total].
Now, if the company can convert the water into rocket fuel and
sell the rocket fuel for $2000 per lb [a very reasonable price] then
the gross worth of that 200 tons of water is worth $800 million.
Now, this gas station could also then buy more water test payloads,
and make more rocket fuel and sell it.

Now, I think the gas station owner will pay $500 lb or less for water
delivered to the gas station, but maybe he will need to pay as much
as $1000 per lb. And instead of charging $2000 per lb for rocket
fuel, he might charge $4000 per lb, or $8000 per lb.

So, what does govt get from this. Well, NASA said it would cost
about 10 billion dollars to build a gas station in LEO. So instead
the govt would get it for free- and doesn't need to pay any
operating costs. It could buy unlimited amounts of rocket fuel
in orbit- or chose not to buy any. It pays at the moment somewhere
more than $10,000 per lb for anything it wants to bring to orbit,
so even if it paid $8000 per lb of rocket fuel it would getting a
cheaper price. It could reuse space vehicles which burn up it's fuel
getting to orbit and could then refilling in orbit, so the vehicle capable
of getting to LEO could go to the moon or mars.