Comments by "K `" (@user-jt3dw6vv4x) on "A tiny Indian archipelago makes China nervous" video.

What the hell are you talking about? The islands are part of India so they're part of Asia. Did you just infer that India is not part of Asia? Talk about ignorance.
3
India is called a "subcontinent" in reference to its ethnic diversity because every state in the country has its own language, culture and ethnic group. It's basically like a continent. It's still a part of the Asian continent.
2
@awijaya2116 You bring up a very interesting question regarding the American view of India. In the eyes of the US and pretty much the rest of the Western world, India is always juxtaposed with China. To the US, India is what they want China to be. The American view always stresses the fact that India is a democracy and thus as a democratic nation, India is always seen as a country that the US can work with (even though historically both countries have never been close). Personally, I think the American view of India will change as the country continues to grow - at least to an extent. If we look at history, the US has never been fond of another country challenging American hegemony. The government and those in positions of influence will find a difference between India and the US and use that to construct a narrative that pits the two countries against. All this talk of the Asian Century has also received negative reports. So in the future, with China projected to be at the top and India challenging the US economically, that negative rhetoric we've seen when some people talk about the Asian Century will probably become more prominent.
2
Cutting India's water supply will also cut off the water supply to Bangladesh. China also has control over the water sources for the whole of mainland Southeast Asia (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam) and damming those rivers will lead to no fresh water in mainland Southeast Asia. China is very interested in Tibet because Tibet is known as the "water tower of Asia" as it supplies so much fresh water to many parts of South and Southeast Asia. So cutting off water would basically be an act of war.
1
@adilsheikh843 "Subcontinent" is mostly in reference to India's ethnic diversity (including Pakistan and Bangladesh were both part of India at one point). I guess what you're referring to is the tectonic plate known as the Indian plate that crashed into the Eurasian plate (consisting of most of Asia and Europe) to form the Himalayas.
1
@deepakthakur1610 No the Kra canal should not be built because it will completely ruin the economy of Singapore which plays a huge role in facilitating trade that passes through the Strait of Malacca. There is opposition in Singapore and Malaysia to the Kra canal because of the damage it could do the economies of both nations.
1
@deepakthakur1610 Yeah but then all of the trade will pass through the Kra canal. Nobody will ever want to traverse the seas of the Strait of Malacca and go to Singapore. At the end of the day, the number of ships that dock in Singapore will diminish. It'll be so much easier and less time consuming to go straight through the Kra canal and directly into the Gulf of Thailand and then into the South China Sa. Right now, all ships dock in Singapore and move through the Natuna Sea and into the South China Sea when they travel upwards to East Asia. The Kra canal will also turn the entire Malay peninsula (of which half of Malaysia lies on) into an island as it will be cut off completely from the Asian mainland. There is opposition to that.
1
@ritemolawbks8012 To be fair, the European Union is Western and thus culturally similar to the US. The EU is also not a country and many European nations are part of NATO. Russia was ideologically/culturally different to the US and Japan was culturally different to the US despite being a democratic nation. The idea that India challenging the economic position of the US in the future won't lead to a confrontation between the two countries doesn't sound very plausible in my opinion. The talk of the Asian Century (especially in regards to the rise of China and India) has drawn out negative commentary in the US and the fact that Indian and Chinese IT workers were threatened with violence in Texas because of the belief that Indians and Chinese are taking all of the IT jobs is a testament to what could happen. It's just like what happened to Japanese/East Asian workers in the US when they were targeted during the 1980s. I hope this won't be the case but it's kind of hard to tell, especially with how things are in the world today.
1
@ritemolawbks8012 Modi and Trump were close so I would say that's the reason why. Also, many Indian Americans are of North Indian origin. However, I don't think many Indians (outside of North India) actually like him. I have Indian friends who come from South India and they said that Modi is not popular at all in the southern states. This is because Modi is more of a Hindu nationalist and Hindu nationalism isn't a thing in South India. Nobody in South India also speaks Hindi so they feel really disconnected culturally and politically from Modi and the North Indian Modi supporters. Yeah I agree, the relationship between the two countries would have to be equal. Also, I agree with your points on the UN Security Council. The UN Security Council is severely outdated. France shouldn't even be there anymore. The idea that Western Europe is still important in geopolitics today is incorrect in my opinion. The international geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly to Asia and the emerging economies in Asia, Africa and Latin America are the ones that are experiencing the highest economic growth in the world. These economies will eventually take a seat at the table and I think the UN Security Council needs to change. The veto rule is also very problematic in my opinion.
1
@ritemolawbks8012 Yeah you're right. The veto rule basically protects all those on the UN Security Council. No, I'm not in India, I'm actually not of Indian descent but I like to read about and keep up with Asian and Pacific geopolitics because I live in Australia.
1
I don't think they have an issue but even if they did, there's nothing they can do about it. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands are part of India and the surrounding waters are part of India's EEZ.
1
@winstonsmith1271 I don't think there are any diplomatic tools to hinder the project. I don't think they have anything because it's all within India's EEZ so legally India can do anything they want because the islands are under their jurisdiction and the Convention of the Law of the Sea allows this. Myanmar is also close to both India and China and India and China are some of the largest foreign suppliers for the Tatmadaw (the military that is controlling Myanmar). You may recall the Rohingya genocide in late 2017. The reason why Myanmar still manages to stand today without any embarrassment or remorse, despite backlash from the international community, is because India and China turned a blind eye to what was happening back then. Both countries have significant influence in the country. That's why back then, Western powers said that for anything to change in Myanmar you need to get India and China on board. As for Thailand, both India and Thailand perform maritime drills using their navies together in the Andaman Sea.
1