The Great Nicobar Question: Why India Is Betting on a Remote Island at the Edge of the Indo-Pacific

 

The strategic, economic, and geopolitical case for India's most ambitious island project

In the early hours of almost any day, somewhere in the waters between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific, enormous container ships move silently through one of the busiest maritime corridors on Earth. Some carry electronics assembled in East Asia. Others transport machinery, textiles, automobiles, chemicals, food products, or energy supplies destined for markets thousands of kilometers away. Individually, each vessel represents a commercial transaction. Collectively, they form part of a vast system upon which modern civilization depends. The shelves of supermarkets, the inventories of factories, the supply chains of multinational corporations, and the economic fortunes of entire nations are tied, often invisibly, to the movement of these ships.

Most of them pass through a narrow waterway known as the Strait of Malacca.

For centuries, this stretch of water between the Malay Peninsula and the Indonesian island of Sumatra has served as one of the world's great maritime gateways. Today it is among the most important chokepoints in the global economy. A disruption here would not remain a regional event. It would ripple through supply chains, commodity markets, manufacturing systems, and energy networks across continents. Few places illustrate more clearly a reality that modern societies sometimes forget: despite all our technological advances, geography continues to shape power.

A ship moving from Shanghai to Rotterdam cannot upload its cargo into the cloud. An oil tanker transporting energy from the Middle East to East Asia cannot bypass oceans through software. The digital economy may operate at the speed of light, but the physical economy still moves through ports, sea lanes, railways, highways, and strategic passages carved by geography itself. The twenty-first century may be defined by artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and digital networks, yet it remains deeply dependent upon routes that sailors, merchants, and empires have recognized for centuries.

This is where the story of Great Nicobar begins.

The island lies at the southernmost edge of India, more than 1,600 kilometers from the mainland and closer to parts of Southeast Asia than to New Delhi. Covered by dense tropical forests and surrounded by ecologically rich waters, it has long occupied a marginal place in the national imagination. Most Indians have never visited it. Many could not locate it on a map. For decades, Great Nicobar was discussed primarily in relation to its biodiversity, its indigenous communities, and its remote location. It was rarely considered central to conversations about India's economic future or strategic ambitions.

That perception is changing.

In recent years, Great Nicobar has emerged as the focal point of one of the most ambitious infrastructure proposals in independent India's history. The project envisions a large transshipment port, an international airport, urban development, power infrastructure, and supporting logistics systems. Supporters view it as a transformational opportunity capable of strengthening India's role in global trade and enhancing its position within the Indo-Pacific. Critics warn about ecological disruption, risks to indigenous communities, and the possibility of irreversible environmental damage. The debate has become increasingly intense, drawing in policymakers, environmentalists, military strategists, economists, academics, and civil society groups.

Yet beneath the arguments lies a simpler question.

Why is India willing to devote such enormous resources, attention, and political capital to a remote island that most citizens have never seen?

The answer cannot be found in the island alone. It lies in the intersection of geography, economics, and geopolitics. Great Nicobar matters not because of what it is today, but because of where it is located and what that location could mean in a century increasingly shaped by maritime trade.

To understand why, it helps to zoom out.

The modern global economy often appears borderless. Information flows instantly across continents. Capital moves electronically. Companies coordinate operations across multiple time zones. Consumers order products manufactured thousands of kilometers away with a few taps on a smartphone. This creates the impression that physical geography has become less important than it once was. In reality, globalization has made geography more consequential, not less.

The reason is simple. Globalization did not eliminate distance; it organized economic activity around the infrastructure required to overcome distance. As supply chains expanded across continents, the locations connecting those supply chains became increasingly valuable. Ports, canals, rail corridors, logistics hubs, and maritime chokepoints acquired importance disproportionate to their size. Places that sat astride major flows of trade became strategic assets.

History offers countless examples.

Venice became wealthy not because it possessed vast natural resources but because it occupied a position connecting European and Mediterranean commerce. The Dutch Republic leveraged maritime trade to become one of the most influential economic powers of its era. Britain's rise was inseparable from sea power and commercial networks spanning multiple oceans. In the twentieth century, ports such as Singapore, Rotterdam, and Hong Kong transformed strategic geography into economic prosperity.

The pattern repeats throughout history because trade rarely moves randomly. It follows routes. Those routes create hubs. The hubs generate wealth. Wealth attracts investment. Investment creates institutions. Over time, geography becomes economics.

The Indian Ocean has long been one of the world's most important arenas for this process.

Long before the rise of modern globalization, merchants sailed between East Africa, Arabia, India, Southeast Asia, and China. Spices, textiles, precious metals, ceramics, and countless other goods crossed these waters. Alongside commerce traveled religions, languages, technologies, and ideas. The Indian Ocean was not a barrier separating civilizations. It was a highway connecting them.

At various points in history, India occupied a central position within these maritime networks. Ancient and medieval Indian merchants traded extensively across the region. South Indian kingdoms, particularly the Cholas, projected influence deep into Southeast Asia through maritime power. Indian ports served as nodes within commercial systems linking distant societies. For much of history, India's relationship with the ocean was not peripheral. It was foundational.

The colonial era altered that relationship in complex ways. Maritime networks continued to matter, but they increasingly operated within structures shaped by European imperial powers. After independence, India's priorities naturally focused on nation-building, industrialization, agriculture, economic development, and the management of complex land borders. Oceans remained important, yet strategic thinking often centered on continental challenges.

The rise of Asia has begun to change that.

Over the past four decades, the center of gravity of the global economy has shifted steadily toward the Indo-Pacific. Manufacturing expanded across East Asia. Trade volumes surged. Supply chains became more integrated. Maritime commerce grew dramatically. Today, a significant share of global economic activity depends upon sea lanes stretching across the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

This shift has forced countries throughout the region to rethink their geography.

The term "Indo-Pacific" itself reflects this transformation. It is more than a geopolitical slogan. It represents a recognition that the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean increasingly function as parts of a single interconnected system. Energy flows from the Middle East to East Asia. Manufactured goods move from Asian factories to global markets. Raw materials travel in the opposite direction. Economic activity, strategic competition, and technological development are increasingly linked across this vast maritime space.

Few locations are more central to that system than the Strait of Malacca.

The strait is often described as a chokepoint, but the term does not fully capture its significance. It is better understood as one of the world's great commercial arteries. A substantial share of global trade passes through it. Energy shipments destined for major Asian economies move through its waters. Container ships carrying goods worth billions of dollars traverse it daily. The economic health of numerous countries depends upon its continued openness and stability.

For China, Japan, South Korea, and much of Southeast Asia, the strait is indispensable. For the global economy, it is one of the critical links connecting production centers, energy suppliers, and consumer markets.

And Great Nicobar sits remarkably close to it.

This proximity does not automatically guarantee prosperity. Geography creates possibilities, not outcomes. Throughout history, many strategically located places failed to capitalize on their advantages. Others transformed those advantages into extraordinary success stories. The difference usually lay not in geography itself but in the institutions, infrastructure, and long-term vision built around it.

That distinction sits at the heart of the Great Nicobar project.

Supporters are not arguing that location alone will transform the island. Rather, they believe India possesses a rare strategic opportunity. Their argument is that Great Nicobar's position near one of the world's most important maritime corridors provides a foundation upon which a larger economic and strategic ecosystem can be built. In this view, the island is not merely a piece of territory. It is a platform for participating more actively in the future architecture of Indo-Pacific trade.

Whether that vision ultimately succeeds remains an open question. Geography can create opportunities, but it cannot guarantee outcomes. Success depends on infrastructure, governance, investment, connectivity, and execution over decades rather than years.

Before evaluating those challenges, however, it is necessary to understand the opportunity itself. Why do ports generate wealth? Why do some maritime hubs become engines of prosperity while others remain marginal? And why do so many discussions about Great Nicobar eventually arrive at the same comparison—a small island nation that transformed geography into one of the most remarkable economic success stories of the modern era?

To answer those questions, we must leave Great Nicobar for a moment and travel several hundred kilometers east to a place that has become both a model and a benchmark for maritime ambition: Singapore.

The Singapore Dream

Few cities have done more to shape modern thinking about trade, ports, and economic geography than Singapore.

Mention the city in a discussion about development, and most people immediately think of prosperity. They think of gleaming skyscrapers, world-class infrastructure, efficient public services, modern airports, and one of the highest standards of living in Asia. To many governments around the world, Singapore has become shorthand for successful development. It is frequently cited as proof that a small territory with limited natural resources can achieve extraordinary economic success through strategic planning and effective governance.

Yet prosperity was not Singapore's starting point.

When Singapore became independent in 1965, its prospects appeared uncertain. It possessed little land, few natural resources, and a population far smaller than many neighboring countries. Conventional measures of national power suggested significant disadvantages. It lacked vast mineral deposits. It lacked a large domestic market. It lacked agricultural abundance. By the standards traditionally used to evaluate economic potential, Singapore appeared constrained.

Its greatest asset was geography.

Situated near one of the world's most important maritime crossroads, Singapore occupied a location through which a substantial share of global trade already passed. Geography alone, however, could not guarantee prosperity. History is full of strategically located places that failed to convert location into lasting economic success. What distinguished Singapore was its ability to recognize that geography was not a destination. It was a starting point.

Over the following decades, policymakers transformed that geographic advantage into an economic ecosystem. Ports expanded. Infrastructure improved. Regulations became more efficient. Institutions developed reputations for reliability and predictability. Investors gained confidence. Businesses established regional operations. Shipping companies increasingly viewed Singapore not simply as a place to stop but as a place around which entire commercial networks could be organized.

The result was a phenomenon that economists often describe as a virtuous cycle.

Trade attracted investment. Investment attracted businesses. Businesses attracted talent. Talent generated innovation. Innovation strengthened competitiveness. Competitiveness attracted more trade. Over time, the city evolved from a strategically located port into one of the most important commercial hubs in the world.

This transformation offers an important lesson for understanding Great Nicobar.

The lesson is not that every island can become Singapore. The lesson is that ports create value in ways that are often poorly understood.

When people imagine a port, they tend to focus on the visible elements. Cranes loading containers. Ships entering harbors. Warehouses storing goods. Trucks transporting cargo. These activities matter, but they represent only the surface of a much larger economic system.

Modern ports function as platforms.

They connect producers with consumers, manufacturers with suppliers, exporters with importers, and businesses with markets. Around successful ports emerge logistics companies, financial services, insurance providers, customs operations, data systems, warehousing facilities, transportation networks, repair services, technology firms, and industrial clusters. The economic value generated by these activities often exceeds the value created by the port itself.

This explains why some of the world's most successful cities developed around maritime infrastructure.

Rotterdam became the gateway to much of Europe. Dubai transformed itself into a major logistics hub connecting multiple continents. Hong Kong emerged as a commercial bridge between China and the global economy. Shanghai evolved into one of the world's busiest ports as China's manufacturing power expanded. In each case, maritime connectivity became the foundation upon which broader economic ecosystems were built.

The rise of containerization accelerated this process dramatically.

Before the container revolution, global trade was slower, more expensive, and significantly less efficient. Cargo often had to be loaded and unloaded manually, a process that consumed time, labor, and money. The introduction of standardized shipping containers transformed the economics of global commerce. Goods could move more efficiently between ships, trucks, railways, and warehouses. Transportation costs fell. Trade expanded. Supply chains became increasingly global.

The consequences were profound.

Manufacturing could now be organized across continents. Components produced in one country could be assembled in another and sold in a third. Entire industries emerged around the assumption that goods could move cheaply and reliably across oceans. In many ways, modern globalization rests upon the humble shipping container as much as it rests upon the internet.

This transformation also increased the importance of maritime hubs.

As trade volumes expanded, shipping companies sought efficiency. Rather than sending every vessel to every destination, they increasingly relied on transshipment systems. Large ships would carry cargo along major international routes. Containers would then be transferred at strategic hubs and distributed onward through smaller regional networks.

The airline industry offers a useful comparison.

A passenger traveling internationally often changes planes at a major hub airport rather than flying directly between two smaller cities. The hub becomes valuable because it aggregates traffic from multiple origins and destinations. Maritime transshipment works in a similar way. Cargo converges at strategically located ports before continuing toward final markets.

Singapore became one of the world's most successful examples of this model.

Its location near major shipping routes allowed it to serve as a connecting point for enormous volumes of maritime traffic. Ships did not stop there merely because it was geographically convenient. They stopped because the surrounding infrastructure, services, efficiency, and connectivity made economic sense.

This distinction matters because discussions about Great Nicobar sometimes create the impression that geography alone is sufficient.

It is not.

If geography were enough, the world would contain far more Singapores.

The challenge facing Great Nicobar is not merely to build infrastructure. The challenge is to create conditions under which infrastructure becomes economically relevant. Shipping companies choose routes based on cost, reliability, turnaround time, connectivity, and commercial opportunity. Businesses make investment decisions based on predictability, efficiency, and long-term confidence. Ports succeed when they become integrated into larger economic systems.

This is where the Indian dimension of the story becomes increasingly important.

India is one of the world's largest economies. It possesses a vast consumer market, a growing manufacturing base, expanding infrastructure networks, and ambitions to play a larger role in global trade. Yet for decades, a significant portion of container traffic linked to India has passed through foreign transshipment hubs before reaching final destinations.

This reality carries economic implications.

Every time cargo is handled, transferred, stored, insured, financed, or serviced at a major hub, economic activity is generated. Jobs are created. Businesses emerge. Supporting industries expand. The value associated with trade extends far beyond the movement of goods themselves.

For many policymakers, therefore, the question is straightforward. If India is already generating substantial trade volumes, why should so much of the associated value creation occur elsewhere?

The Great Nicobar project represents one possible answer.

Supporters argue that India's geography provides an opportunity to capture a larger share of regional maritime activity. They see the island as a potential node within the evolving architecture of Indo-Pacific commerce. If global trade continues to expand and if India's economic weight continues to grow, they believe the country should possess maritime infrastructure capable of supporting those ambitions.

This argument becomes particularly compelling when viewed against broader trends reshaping Asia.

The center of gravity of the global economy has been moving eastward for decades. Manufacturing networks stretch across East and Southeast Asia. Consumer markets continue to expand. Supply chains are adapting to geopolitical uncertainty. Governments increasingly discuss resilience, diversification, and strategic connectivity. Maritime infrastructure has become a critical component of these conversations because trade remains fundamentally dependent upon movement.

In this environment, Great Nicobar is being imagined not merely as an island but as a platform.

Its advocates envision a future in which geography, infrastructure, and economic activity reinforce one another in ways similar to successful maritime hubs elsewhere. Whether that vision ultimately proves realistic remains uncertain. Building a port is difficult. Building an economic ecosystem is far more difficult. History contains examples of ambitious infrastructure projects that failed to achieve their intended outcomes because they underestimated the complexity of commercial networks.

Yet history also reminds us that transformative projects often appear improbable before they succeed.

The future of Great Nicobar will depend on far more than engineering. It will depend on governance, institutions, connectivity, investment, commercial confidence, and long-term execution. Geography may create the opportunity, but opportunity alone never guarantees prosperity.

This is where the conversation begins to move beyond economics and into strategy.

The island's location near major shipping routes matters to traders and investors. It also matters to governments. In an era when maritime commerce and geopolitical competition increasingly overlap, strategic geography has acquired renewed significance. The same sea lanes that carry container ships also influence national security calculations. The same maritime corridors that support economic growth shape regional balances of power.

To understand why Great Nicobar has attracted such intense attention in recent years, one must therefore look beyond ports and trade networks toward a broader transformation taking place across the Indo-Pacific—one driven in large part by the rise of China and the return of strategic competition to the world's oceans.

The China Factor and the Return of Strategic Geography

If Great Nicobar were merely an economic project, the debate surrounding it would likely be far less intense.

Ports are built across the world with remarkable frequency. Governments invest in logistics infrastructure, airports, industrial corridors, and transportation networks as part of routine economic development. Such projects may generate disagreements about costs, feasibility, or environmental impacts, but they rarely become subjects of national strategic discussion.

Great Nicobar is different because economics and geopolitics increasingly occupy the same space.

The rise of globalization led many observers to believe that economic integration would gradually reduce the importance of traditional power politics. As trade expanded and supply chains stretched across continents, the assumption was that nations would become more focused on mutual prosperity than strategic competition. Markets would matter more than geography. Economics would matter more than geopolitics.

The twenty-first century has delivered a more complicated reality.

Trade expanded. Globalization accelerated. Yet geopolitical competition never disappeared. Instead, it evolved. Ports became strategic assets. Supply chains became national security concerns. Semiconductors became geopolitical instruments. Undersea cables became critical infrastructure. Shipping routes became subjects of strategic planning. The same systems that enabled global prosperity also created new vulnerabilities.

No country has influenced this transformation more profoundly than China.

Over the past four decades, China's economic rise has reshaped global trade on a scale rarely seen in modern history. Manufacturing expanded dramatically. Infrastructure investments accelerated. Chinese exports reached markets around the world. Hundreds of millions of people entered the middle class. Ports along China's coastline became among the busiest on Earth. The country's integration into global commerce became one of the defining economic stories of the modern era.

Yet China's rise also revealed a strategic reality that many great powers have confronted throughout history.

Economic power depends upon access.

Factories require raw materials. Consumers require imported goods. Industries require energy. Supply chains require transportation networks. Modern economies may appear digital, but they remain deeply dependent upon physical infrastructure connecting them to the wider world.

For China, a substantial portion of those connections pass through the Strait of Malacca.

This fact has occupied Chinese strategic thinking for years. Analysts frequently discuss what became known as the "Malacca Dilemma"—the concern that a significant share of China's trade and energy imports flows through a narrow maritime corridor beyond its direct control. Whether the dilemma is overstated or not is less important than what it reveals. It demonstrates that even in an age of advanced technology, geography continues to influence national strategy.

China's response has been multifaceted.

The country has invested heavily in ports, shipping infrastructure, logistics networks, rail corridors, and connectivity projects extending across multiple continents. Some initiatives are commercial. Others carry strategic implications. Most exist somewhere in between. The broader objective has been to improve connectivity, reduce vulnerabilities, and strengthen China's position within the architecture of global trade.

The consequences of these efforts have been felt throughout the Indo-Pacific.

Countries across the region increasingly view maritime infrastructure through a dual lens. A port can generate economic activity, but it can also enhance strategic influence. A logistics hub can facilitate commerce, but it can also improve resilience during periods of uncertainty. Infrastructure projects that might once have been evaluated purely through economic metrics are now assessed according to both commercial and geopolitical considerations.

This shift helps explain why Great Nicobar attracts attention that extends far beyond India.

Its location places it near one of the most strategically important maritime corridors in the world at a time when the Indo-Pacific has become the central arena of global economic and geopolitical activity. The island occupies a position that naturally attracts interest from shipping companies, economists, military planners, policymakers, and strategic analysts alike.

Supporters of the project frequently argue that India cannot afford to ignore this reality.

Their reasoning begins with a simple observation. The twenty-first century is increasingly being shaped by maritime Asia. The world's fastest-growing economic region depends heavily upon sea-borne trade. Supply chains stretch across oceans. Energy flows through maritime corridors. Strategic competition increasingly revolves around access, connectivity, and resilience. In such an environment, countries that possess advantageous geography but fail to leverage it risk missing opportunities that may not reappear.

From this perspective, Great Nicobar is not simply a development project. It is part of a larger strategic adjustment.

For much of its modern history, India's security concerns naturally focused on continental challenges. Geography encouraged this orientation. The country's immediate strategic environment involved land borders, regional disputes, internal development priorities, and continental security considerations. Oceans mattered, but they rarely occupied the center of strategic discourse.

The rise of the Indo-Pacific has begun to alter that perspective.

Indian policymakers increasingly recognize that the country's future will be shaped not only by events occurring along its borders but also by developments across the surrounding seas. Trade, energy security, supply chains, technology flows, and geopolitical influence are increasingly connected to maritime networks. The oceans surrounding India are no longer peripheral spaces. They are becoming central theaters of economic and strategic activity.

This shift has prompted a broader rediscovery of India's maritime identity.

Historically, India was never solely a continental civilization. For centuries, Indian merchants, sailors, traders, and kingdoms participated actively in Indian Ocean networks connecting East Africa, Arabia, Southeast Asia, and beyond. Commercial relationships crossed oceans. Cultural exchanges followed maritime routes. Economic influence often extended far beyond the subcontinent itself.

The Chola Empire provides one of the clearest examples. At its height, the Cholas projected maritime influence across large parts of Southeast Asia through trade, diplomacy, and naval capability. Their success was not merely military. It reflected an understanding that economic prosperity and maritime connectivity were closely linked. The Indian Ocean served not as a barrier but as a strategic and commercial space.

In many respects, the Indo-Pacific era represents a return to that reality.

The world's economic center of gravity is increasingly maritime. Nations that wish to influence global trade must think about ports, logistics, sea lanes, connectivity, and strategic geography. Great Nicobar fits into this larger shift because it symbolizes an attempt to think beyond traditional continental frameworks and toward a future in which maritime power plays a larger role in India's development.

Yet strategic significance alone does not guarantee success.

History is littered with examples of countries that correctly identified important opportunities but failed to capitalize on them. Geography can create potential. Infrastructure can create capability. Neither automatically creates prosperity.

The ultimate test lies in execution.

Can the island attract sustained economic activity? Can infrastructure be developed efficiently? Can governance systems support long-term commercial confidence? Can environmental and social concerns be managed responsibly? Can strategic ambitions be translated into practical outcomes?

These questions matter because Great Nicobar is ultimately not being built for the present.

It is being built for a future that policymakers believe is emerging.

That future is frequently discussed through a single date: 2047.

As India approaches the centenary of independence, discussions about national development increasingly focus on what kind of country India hopes to become. Economic growth targets receive significant attention. Infrastructure ambitions are widely discussed. Technological leadership, manufacturing expansion, energy security, and geopolitical influence all feature prominently in long-term planning.

Yet beneath these conversations lies a deeper question.

What kind of power does India want to be?

The answer will not be determined solely by GDP rankings, military capabilities, or technological achievements. It will also be shaped by the country's ability to build institutions, infrastructure, and strategic assets capable of supporting those ambitions over the long term.

Viewed from this perspective, Great Nicobar becomes more than a port project.

It becomes a symbol.

Supporters see it as a symbol of a more confident India willing to think strategically about geography, trade, and maritime power. They view it as evidence that the country is beginning to look outward toward the oceans that connect it to the wider world.

Critics, as we will explore in the next part of this series, see something different. They worry that strategic ambition may come at the expense of fragile ecosystems, indigenous communities, and environmental sustainability. They question whether the benefits will justify the risks. They ask whether development of this scale can occur without causing irreversible damage.

Both perspectives deserve serious consideration.

Indeed, the most important insight about Great Nicobar may be that both emerge from legitimate concerns. The project is not simply a contest between development and opposition, progress and preservation, growth and conservation. It is a collision between competing priorities that modern societies increasingly struggle to balance.

That is why the Great Nicobar debate matters far beyond a single island.

At its core, it asks whether a rising nation can simultaneously pursue economic growth, strategic security, environmental stewardship, and social responsibility. It asks whether large-scale development projects can be executed intelligently enough to preserve what is valuable while creating something new. It asks whether twenty-first-century infrastructure can be built without repeating some of the mistakes associated with twentieth-century development.

For all the attention devoted to ports, airports, shipping routes, and strategic maps, the real significance of Great Nicobar may lie elsewhere.

The island sits at the intersection of some of the most important questions India will face on its journey toward 2047. Questions about development. Questions about sustainability. Questions about state capacity. Questions about the relationship between economic ambition and environmental responsibility.

In that sense, Great Nicobar is not merely a story about an island. It is a story about the kind of nation India hopes to become.

The Island and the Nation

A container ship passing through the Strait of Malacca is unlikely to notice Great Nicobar. From the deck, it appears as little more than a distant landmass rising from the ocean. Yet geography has a way of turning overlooked places into important ones. History repeatedly demonstrates that locations sitting quietly at the edges of great economic systems can, under the right circumstances, become central to them.

Whether Great Nicobar eventually joins that list remains uncertain.

The strategic logic behind the project is clear. The economic opportunity is understandable. The geopolitical context is compelling. The ambitions attached to the island reflect larger changes occurring across Asia and within India itself. They reflect a belief that maritime power, connectivity, and strategic infrastructure will matter profoundly in the decades ahead.

But geography creates opportunities, not outcomes.

The success of Great Nicobar will ultimately depend not on maps but on decisions. It will depend on governance, execution, institutions, and the ability to balance competing priorities. It will depend on whether India can transform a strategic location into a sustainable success story.

That challenge begins with recognizing what Great Nicobar truly represents.

It is not merely an island project. It is India's attempt to reposition itself within the geography of twenty-first-century trade.

Whether that bet succeeds may help shape the story of India's second century.

You may also like:

The Great Nicobar Question: Can India Build Its Own Singapore Without Losing What Makes Great Nicobar Unique?

And 

The Rupee Project: How India Is Quietly Building Monetary Power Beyond the Dollar

And

After Hasina: When India’s Easiest Neighbour Became Its Most Demanding One