Source: The post Great Nicobar project threatens tribes ecology and disaster safety has been created, based on the article “The making of an ecological disaster in the Nicobar” published in “The Hindu” on 8 September 2025. Great Nicobar Island Project.
UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 3- economy- infrastructure, and environment conservation.
Context: The Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project, costing ₹72,000 crore, is portrayed as reckless. It endangers indigenous communities, damages a rare rainforest ecosystem, and ignores disaster risks. The article says legal safeguards and deliberative processes were bypassed to push it through.
For detailed information information on Great Nicobar Island Project read this article here
Why is the project contested?
- Scale and stakes: A ₹72,000 crore plan is called a misplaced spend. It threatens communities and ecology, and proceeds despite statutory protections.
- Indigenous homelands targeted: Ancestral Nicobarese villages lie within the project area. The 2004 tsunami forced evacuation; the project means permanent displacement, ending hopes of return.
- Shompen policy ignored: The Shompen Policy requires prioritising tribal welfare and integrity. Instead, reserves are denotified, forests are opened, and population inflows are enabled, cutting the Shompen off from ancestral lands and livelihoods.
How are tribal rights being undermined?
- Bypassing constitutional bodies: Under Article 338-A, the Government should have consulted the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes. It did not. The Tribal Council Chairman’s plea for Nicobarese return was ignored.
- Coerced consent revoked: A Letter of No Objection from the Tribal Council was later revoked. The Council said it had been “rushed” into signing.
- Legal assessments evaded: The SIA under the 2013 land acquisition law omitted Nicobarese and Shompen as stakeholders. Forest Rights Act (2006) mandates and Shompen consultations were ignored, despite their authority over forest protection.
What are the ecological and legal red flags?
- Massive deforestation: About 15% of the island may be cleared. The Ministry estimates 8.5 lakh trees cut; independent estimates suggest 32–58 lakh. A globally unique rainforest is imperilled.
- Dubious compensatory afforestation: Afforestation is planned in Haryana, with a different ecology and far from the island. A quarter of that land has been auctioned for mining. Plantations cannot replace old-growth, biodiversity-rich forests.
- CRZ 1A concerns and secrecy: Parts of the port site fall in CRZ 1A, where ports are prohibited due to turtle nesting sites and coral reefs. Despite evidence, a High-Powered Committee reclassified the site; its report and ground-truthing remain unpublished.
What methodological flaws are alleged?
- Ignored expert warnings: Primatologists warned about impacts on the Nicobar long-tailed macaque. Their concerns were ignored.
- Flawed biodiversity surveys: Sea turtle nesting was assessed off-season. Drones used for dugongs can assess only shallow areas, limiting accuracy.
- Questionable research conditions: Evidence suggests institutes worked under highly unusual conditions, bordering on duress. This undermines credibility.
What are the disaster risks and moral stakes?
- Seismic vulnerability: The area is earthquake-prone. The 2004 tsunami caused about 15 feet of permanent subsidence. A 6.2 magnitude quake in July 2025 shows continuing risk. Siting a massive project here jeopardises investment, infrastructure, people, and ecology.
- Existential threat to tribes: The Shompen and Nicobarese face survival risks from displacement and ecological loss.
Question for practice:
Examine the major social, legal, ecological, and disaster-risk concerns raised about the Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project.
