Context

• Over the last decade, India’s development policies have often been criticised for being rushed and poorly planned.
• Among these, the Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project, with a staggering cost estimate of ₹72,000 crore, stands out as a particularly alarming example.
• The project threatens to displace indigenous communities and destroy one of the world’s most unique and sensitive ecosystems.
• It overlooks constitutional mandates, undermines environmental regulations, and subjects the region to extreme ecological and human risk.
• This is a case where ambition is placed above justice, legality, and long-term sustainability.

Concerns Surrounding the Great Nicobar Project

• Displacement of Indigenous Communities
• Great Nicobar is inhabited by two vulnerable indigenous groups: the Nicobarese and the Shompen.
• The Nicobarese, whose ancestral settlements are located within the project''s boundaries, were already displaced during the 2004 tsunami. Their hopes of returning have now been permanently extinguished by state intervention.
• The Shompen, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), face even greater risks:
• The government has denotified sections of their reserve, cleared critical forests, and enabled outsider migration, effectively isolating the Shompen from their land.
• These actions threaten their cultural integrity, economic survival, and territorial rights.

Bypassing Constitutional and Legal Protections

• The project disregards vital constitutional and statutory safeguards for tribal communities: Article 338-A requires consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes—this consultation was never held. The Tribal Council’s opposition, including their revoked Letter of No Objection, was completely ignored.
• These actions go beyond neglect; they represent a deliberate subversion of due process and tribal rights.

Legal and Regulatory Subversions

1. Social Impact Assessment (SIA): Required under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, the SIA is meant to evaluate consequences on local populations. Shockingly, the Nicobarese and Shompen were not even mentioned in the final assessment report.
2. Forest Rights Act (2006): This law entitles tribal groups like the Shompen to manage and protect their traditional forest lands. Yet, the Shompen were excluded from all consultations, violating the letter and spirit of the law.
3. Environmental Safeguards: The project intrudes into Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) 1A, where construction is explicitly banned to protect ecologically sensitive zones like coral reefs and turtle nesting beaches. A government-appointed High-Powered Committee reclassified portions of CRZ to bypass these restrictions. Its findings remain undisclosed to the public. These are not isolated oversights, but systematic efforts to evade legal accountability.

Ecological Devastation and the Myth of Compensatory Afforestation

• The project threatens to eliminate up to 15% of Great Nicobar’s forest cover: Official estimates suggest 8.5 lakh trees could be felled. Independent studies estimate the number could be as high as 32–58 lakh trees.
• The government’s plan for compensatory afforestation in distant, climatically incompatible regions is both ecologically irrational and logistically flawed: Part of the land earmarked for afforestation has already been auctioned for mining.
• The port location overlaps with vital habitats such as: Turtle nesting beaches, Coral reef systems
• Biodiversity assessments conducted for the project are scientifically flawed: Turtle studies were conducted outside nesting season. Drones unsuited for underwater observations were used to survey dugong habitats.
• These methodological lapses raise serious concerns regarding scientific credibility and possible institutional coercion.

Seismic Vulnerability and Human Risk

• Great Nicobar lies in a highly seismically active zone: The 2004 tsunami caused 15 feet of permanent land subsidence on the island. In July 2025, a 6.2-magnitude earthquake again demonstrated the island’s seismic fragility.
• Proposing and executing massive infrastructure projects in such a region is not only ill-advised but jeopardises human safety and economic investments.

The Way Forward: A Call for Conscience

• The Great Nicobar infrastructure plan constitutes a profound betrayal of India’s most vulnerable communities and its fragile ecological heritage.
• It:
• Displaces tribal populations with no viable alternatives.
• Ignores constitutional protections and subverts legal norms.
• Destroys irreplaceable rainforests and threatens endemic biodiversity.
• Puts infrastructure and lives in an active disaster-prone zone.
• Development must not come at the expense of environmental ethics, tribal rights, and public safety.
• As a society, we bear the responsibility to oppose such ill-conceived ventures.
• The survival of indigenous cultures, protection of biodiversity, and the safety of future generations hinge on vocal and active resistance.
• To remain silent is to be complicit in the systematic erasure of both culture and nature.

Conclusion

The Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project represents a dangerous paradigm of development that sacrifices justice, ecological integrity, and human survival for the sake of short-term ambition. By disregarding tribal rights, devastating ancient forests, and building in a known seismic hazard zone, the project undermines both legal obligations and sustainable development goals. Real progress lies not in the pursuit of unchecked infrastructure but in the commitment to equity, legality, and ecological responsibility.