Explore India’s Great Nicobar Mega Project
A Clash of Ambition and Ecology
The tranquil expanse of the Bay of Bengal cradles a jewel, the Great Nicobar Island, an ecological marvel teeming with ancient rainforests, rare wildlife, and indigenous communities living in harmony with nature.
But this serene outpost, India’s southernmost tip, is now at the heart of a monumental, multi-billion-dollar infrastructure plan—a project so vast it promises to reshape the island’s very identity.
At an estimated cost of Rs. 72,000 crore (over USD 9 billion), the “Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island” envisions an international transshipment terminal, a greenfield airport for both military and civilian use, a power plant, and a township designed for a population surge from 8,000 to more than 300,000.
This ambitious undertaking, conceptualized by India’s government think tank NITI Aayog, is framed as a strategic necessity for India’s maritime security and economic prowess.
Yet, a rising chorus of environmentalists, tribal rights advocates, academics, and opposition parties has slammed the project as "ecocide" and "disaster capitalism," warning of irreparable damage to one of the world’s most sensitive ecosystems and its vulnerable inhabitants.
As an American journalist, observing from afar, the unfolding narrative on Great Nicobar is a stark reminder of the global tension between rapid development and environmental stewardship, between national ambition and the rights of indigenous peoples.
It’s a story riddled with allegations of opaque decision-making, questionable legal shortcuts, and a concerning disregard for long-term ecological and social viability.
This article delves deep into these complexities, exploring the high stakes involved in India's Great Nicobar mega project and what it could mean for the future of this unique island and its people.
The Jewel of the Bay
Great Nicobar's Ecological and Cultural Riches
Before we plunge into the controversies, it's crucial to understand what makes Great Nicobar so precious, why its protection is deemed paramount by so many. The island, approximately 910 square kilometers of predominantly tropical rainforest, is a biodiverse wonderland.
A Biodiversity Hotspot
A UNESCO Treasure Under Threat
Great Nicobar isn't just any island; it's a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, encompassing two of India’s national parks: Campbell Bay National Park and Galathea National Park.
This recognition underscores its global significance for conservation. Within its dense, tropical evergreen forests and unique coastal ecosystems, lie over 1,800 species of fauna and a rich tapestry of flora, including 650 species of angiosperms, ferns, gymnosperms, and bryophytes.
What’s truly remarkable is the endemism here—one in three bird species and one in four plant species found on Great Nicobar exist nowhere else on Earth.
The island is a critical habitat for numerous endangered and highly protected species. The most famous perhaps is the giant leatherback sea turtle, a creature little changed in 100 million years and one of the oldest surviving on Earth.
Galathea Bay, the very site earmarked for the massive transshipment port, is one of the world's largest and most crucial nesting grounds for these magnificent turtles.
Surveys have shown that the Andaman and Nicobar Islands host globally significant leatherback colonies, with females returning to the very beaches where they hatched to lay their own eggs.
Beyond the leatherbacks, the island is also home to the elusive Nicobar megapode, a shy bird protected under India’s Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, whose active nests are threatened by the project.
Other endemic species under threat include the Nicobar long-tailed macaque, the Nicobar tree shrew, and various cat snakes and tree frogs. The island boasts hundreds of kilometers of mangroves and vibrant coral reefs, both vital components of healthy coastal ecosystems, which are also at risk.
Home to Ancient Tribes
A Culture on the Brink
But Great Nicobar's richness extends beyond its natural environment to its human inhabitants: the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese communities. These tribal groups have lived on the island for thousands of years, their cultures and livelihoods intricately woven into the fabric of the forest and coastal ecosystems.
The Shompen, a "Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group" (PVTG), number a mere 250 individuals. They are semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, living deep within the biosphere reserve, their isolation having left them with little immunity to infectious diseases from the outside world.
Genocide experts from around the globe have appealed to the Indian President, warning that contact with outsiders, especially during the construction phase, could drive the Shompen to extinction due to disease transmission and severe psychological distress.
Plans for "geofencing" their dwellings with barbed wire, ostensibly to protect them from the power plant, have been condemned as "brutish" and a stark denial of their inherent right to the land.
The Nicobarese, another Mongoloid tribe, number around 1,200 on Great Nicobar. They are a more settled population, engaged in plantations, fishing, and hunting. Many were displaced by the devastating 2004 tsunami and resettled in places like Rajiv Nagar.
They have long sought to return to their ancestral villages, some of which are now slated for project development. For them, this project represents a second displacement, threatening their traditional livelihoods, cultural practices, and sense of identity. Their calls for development that aligns with their needs, not at the cost of their land, often go unheard.
India's Ambitious Vision
The Great Nicobar Development Project
The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, envisions transforming Great Nicobar into a strategic economic and security hub.
This plan, officially titled “Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island at Andaman and Nicobar Islands,” is touted as a game-changer for India’s maritime future.
A Hub for Trade and Tourism
Tapping into the Malacca Strait
The primary economic driver for the project is the island’s strategic location near the Malacca Strait, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes.
The government aims to exploit this advantage by building an International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT) in Galathea Bay.
This port is intended to handle over 14 million TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) annually, positioning it as an alternative to established transshipment hubs like Singapore and Colombo, where Indian cargo currently incurs significant handling fees and national security concerns due to reliance on foreign ports.
Beyond trade, the project seeks to unlock the island’s tourism potential. With its "pristine virgin beaches," "lush evergreen rainforests," and "scenic hills," Great Nicobar is seen as a "trekking paradise" ripe for high-end eco-tourism, river cruises, kayaking, bird watching, and water sports.
The proposed greenfield international airport, capable of handling 4,000 passengers, is considered a "pre-requisite" to enhance connectivity and tourist flow, opening up the island for development.
The project also suggests potential for offshore mining of polymetallic nodules, rich in vital minerals like cobalt, nickel, copper, and manganese, further aiming for mineral self-sufficiency.
Bolstering National Security
A Maritime Outpost
The strategic importance of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and Great Nicobar in particular, for India's maritime security is undeniable. Located close to the Malacca Strait, the island concretizes existing defense and surveillance operations in the eastern Indian Ocean.
The presence of the Indian Navy's INS Baaz airbase on Great Nicobar further underscores this importance. The project is intended to strengthen India's naval presence, deter "naval misadventure," especially from Chinese Navy intervention in the Indian Ocean, and boost India's geopolitical standing in the region. Some experts suggest the project is driven more by strategic considerations than purely economic ones.
The Project's Scale
A Transformed Landscape
The transformation envisioned for Great Nicobar is staggering. The project demands the diversion of approximately 130 square kilometers of forest land, entailing the felling of around 1 million trees. Ultimately, nearly 244 square kilometers, almost a fifth of the island, is slated for clearing.
This includes creating a new township for hundreds of thousands of people, an international airport, an international transshipment terminal, and a gas and solar-based power plant. The scale of this intervention is immense, aiming to convert 16,610 hectares of land into residential, commercial, and institutional categories.
A Cloud of Secrecy
Transparency and Governance Concerns
For a project of such immense scale and environmental sensitivity, transparency and adherence to due process are paramount. However, critics allege that the Great Nicobar project has been shrouded in secrecy, marked by rushed approvals, and plagued by conflicts of interest, raising serious questions about its legitimacy.
Information Blackout
RTI Denials and Withheld Data
A consistent pattern of denying information under India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act has fueled public suspicion.
The government has repeatedly cited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which allows information to be withheld for national security, strategic, scientific, or economic interests, when requests were made for details about the committee overseeing biodiversity matters or correspondence from the National Green Tribunal (NGT) regarding project stays.
Even site inspection details for forest diversion approval were denied by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
Furthermore, critical documents, such as the minutes of the High-Powered Committee (HPC) meetings reviewing the environmental clearance, have been withheld, again under the guise of confidentiality related to defense and strategic objectives.
This lack of public disclosure extends to the rationale and data used by the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) when it re-categorized project areas from the highly sensitive Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ)-1A to CRZ-B, a classification that permits port construction.
Rushed Clearances and Conflicts of Interest
A "Mockery" of Process
The speed at which environmental clearances were granted has drawn significant criticism. The Indian National Congress party explicitly stated that clearances were given in violation of "due process, legal and constitutional provisions protecting tribal communities". Jairam Ramesh, a Congress leader, went further, alleging "ecocide" by the government.
There are alarming allegations of conflicts of interest within the project’s approval mechanisms. For example, the managing director of the implementing agency, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO), also served as the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Environment and Forests) of the islands.
This dual role created a scenario where the corporation was effectively certifying its own environmental compliance. Similarly, the Chief Secretary of the islands, who chairs ANIIDCO's board, was part of the HPC investigating complaints against the project, raising serious questions about impartiality.
Even more troubling are instances suggesting pre-determined outcomes. The Chief Minister of Haryana, for example, announced a jungle safari park to be funded by forest clearance in Great Nicobar, even before the environmental clearance for the island project was officially granted.
This timeline strongly implies that critical decisions were made well in advance of, and without respect for, due process. The NITI Aayog initially stated it had no vision document for the development of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, yet this mega-project was conceived by them.
Questionable Environmental Assessments
A Flawed Foundation
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process itself has been widely criticized as a "mockery," riddled with internal contradictions, poor writing, and incorrect information. Surveys were reportedly conducted even before the agency was formally assigned the EIA report.
An RTI response in June 2021 revealed that the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), tasked with mitigation plans, had never conducted any exclusive studies on leatherback turtles in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, undermining the basis for denotifying critical turtle nesting sites.
One of the most concerning aspects is the failure to systematically map tribal settlements and their hunting and foraging grounds on Great Nicobar.
Existing maps used for project planning often ignore these crucial areas, despite clear overlaps with proposed project sites. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) conducted was limited to only a small part of the project (the airport) and was silent on impacts on tribal communities, with no tribal members invited to discussions.
Adding to the climate of secrecy, activists and journalists investigating the project have reported being stonewalled and surveilled, with local police and the Intelligence Bureau tracking their movements on the island. Local officials have been "tight-lipped," sometimes invoking the Official Secrets Act to avoid discussing the project.
This suppression of dissent and restriction of information paints a concerning picture for a project with such far-reaching implications.
A Legal Minefield
Bypassing Due Process and Tribal Rights
The journey of the Great Nicobar mega project is also a testament to the persistent legal challenges and allegations of procedural violations it faces.
From protected wildlife zones to the constitutional rights of indigenous communities, critics argue that the project has systematically undermined established legal frameworks.
Denotifying Sanctuaries
A Blow to Wildlife Protection
In a move that shocked conservationists, the Modi government "denotified" two wildlife sanctuaries—Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary and Megapode Wildlife Sanctuary—in January 2021.
This action effectively "greenlighted" construction in areas previously protected, directly after the National Marine Turtle Action Plan identified Galathea Bay as a crucial nesting site for giant leatherback turtles.
The Megapode Wildlife Sanctuary, too, was a vital habitat for the protected Nicobar megapode.
The denotification was particularly controversial because it was done without "substantial shreds of evidence".
The Wildlife Institute of India (WII) later admitted, through an RTI, that it had not conducted specific studies on leatherback turtles in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands prior to this decision, casting serious doubt on the scientific basis for removing protection from such a critical habitat.
This move raises fundamental questions about the government’s commitment to its own conservation policies and international biodiversity obligations.
Silencing Indigenous Voices
The Battle for Consent
Indian laws explicitly mandate the consent of communities living in scheduled areas for any project implementation. However, the process for obtaining such consent for the Great Nicobar project has been deeply flawed.
The Tribal Council of Great Nicobar and Little Nicobar initially granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for forest diversion in August 2022. Yet, they dramatically withdrew this consent in November 2022, claiming they were misled and that crucial information was withheld, stating their lands would not be taken away.
The meetings where consent was allegedly obtained were rushed, held amid Independence Day celebrations, and the chairperson of the Tribal Council reported being pressured to sign the NOC.
Even more egregious is the revelation that the Director of Tribal Welfare of Andaman and Nicobar expressed a willingness to provide exemptions from laws protecting Aboriginal tribes to facilitate the project's execution.
This demonstrates a concerning disregard for constitutional and legal provisions safeguarding tribal rights.
Experts, including former government officials, have highlighted that environmental clearance was granted without prior consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), a statutory body crucial for protecting tribal interests.
The project's social impact assessment also failed to adequately address the concerns of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities, or even invite tribal members to discussions. Genocide scholars have also written to the President highlighting the severe threats to the Shompen community.
Playing Fast and Loose with Coastal Regulations
The project’s environmental clearance, granted in November 2022, has been challenged in the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
A petition filed in April 2023 cited violations of the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) and potential adverse impacts on ecologically sensitive areas, including coral colonies, leatherback turtle nesting grounds, and tribal ancestral lands.
A key point of contention is the re-categorization of project areas. Initially, the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management (NCSCM) had mapped parts of the project area, particularly around Galathea Bay, as ICRZ-1A zones—the most ecologically sensitive areas where development is strictly prohibited.
However, a later assessment by NCSCM, based on a "ground truthing" exercise, concluded that the entire area fell under CRZ-B, where port activities are permissible.
This change, executed without public disclosure of the rationale or data, allowed for the project’s approval despite initial prohibitions.
While ANIIDCO stated no port developments were planned in ICRZ-1A zones, it avoided clarifying the status of other project components like the airport and township.
The NGT itself formed a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to reassess these alleged deficiencies, and while the HPC concluded the port was in ICRZ-1B, it also recommended translocating thousands of coral colonies, a measure with low success rates and significant ecological questions.
The integrity of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process has been repeatedly questioned. It has been described as a "mockery" due to internal contradictions, poor writing, and incorrect information.
The project proponent, ANIIDCO, itself admitted to lacking an environmental policy, specialized environmental staff, or a human resources department when it was appointed, further raising concerns about its capacity to manage such an environmentally sensitive mega-project.
The High Stakes
Doubts Over Long-Term Viability
Beyond the immediate environmental and legal controversies, the Great Nicobar mega project faces profound doubts regarding its long-term viability—economically, ecologically, and socially.
Experts warn that the sheer scale of investment in a geologically volatile and remote region, coupled with the immense demographic and cultural shifts, could lead to a monumental folly rather than a sustainable success.
Economic Headwinds and Fierce Competition
A Port in Peril?
The economic feasibility of the planned transhipment port, estimated at US$4.34 billion, has been a major point of contention. While its proponents tout the strategic location near the Malacca Strait, critics highlight significant challenges.
First, the island's extreme remoteness—over 1600 km from mainland India—necessitates costly feeder vessels for cargo transport and lacks robust mainland connectivity and infrastructure. Importing construction materials from the mainland is expected to significantly inflate costs, potentially exceeding initial estimates.
Second, the proposed port faces intense competition from well-established and highly efficient ports in Singapore and Colombo. These regional giants boast shorter turnaround times, extensive feeder networks, and mature operational capabilities.
For Great Nicobar to succeed, it would need to handle substantially higher freight volumes and achieve unprecedented levels of efficiency, a tall order given India's limited fleet of feeder ships.
Furthermore, the project's viability is challenged by internal competition from India's own Adani-operated Vizhinjam port in Kerala, which is strategically located and offers lower costs as India's first transshipment hub.
While some suggest the ports could complement each other, the ultimate success of Great Nicobar hinges on attracting sufficient trade volume and overcoming formidable logistical and financial hurdles.
A draft master plan reportedly indicated that the project might not be financially viable, raising serious questions about the commercial appeal and sustainability of such a large investment, especially if it primarily relies on refuelling rather than cargo unloading.
Nature's Fury
A Geologically Volatile Zone
Perhaps the most alarming long-term viability concern is Great Nicobar's precarious geological location. The island lies squarely in the "Ring of Fire" zone, making it exceptionally vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, and significant seismic activity.
The region has experienced approximately 500 earthquakes in the last decade and is classified as the most seismically hazardous region (Category V).
The devastating 2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami serve as a stark historical precedent.
This event caused significant land subsidence in the Nicobar islands—up to 15 feet—permanently altering the island’s geography and submerging entire areas, including the Megapode Wildlife Sanctuary.
The lighthouse at Indira Point, once on land, now stands submerged in water, a poignant symbol of the island's vulnerability.
Critics express serious concerns that the massive investment of over USD 9 billion could be "washed away" by future natural disasters.
While project plans state that all structures will be designed for earthquake and cyclone resistance, the scale of potential geological shifts and tsunamic forces in this highly active zone presents an existential risk that sophisticated engineering alone may not fully mitigate.
An ISRO report in August 2021 also indicated the instability of the shoreline at Galathea Bay.
A Demographic Deluge
Threat to Indigenous Survival
The project’s vision entails a staggering demographic transformation. The island's population, currently around 8,000, is projected to surge to over 300,000, or even 650,000 in early projections, over the next 30 years.
This dramatic influx of outsiders poses an existential threat to the indigenous Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
For the Shompen, their extreme isolation means they lack immunity to external infectious diseases. Increased contact with a rapidly expanding outsider population could lead to disease transmission and a catastrophic population decline.
Genocide experts have explicitly warned that such contact could drive the Shompen to extinction.
The Nicobarese, many of whom were already displaced by the 2004 tsunami, face a second displacement and the erosion of their cultural heritage and traditional livelihoods.
The planned urbanization encroaches upon their ancestral lands, with existing maps often failing to even acknowledge their settlements and foraging grounds.
The loss of land for plantations, restriction of access to forest resources, and forced changes in living arrangements could lead to the dissolution of communal practices and cultural identity.
The Nicobarese themselves fear that with such a population surge, "there will be no space for tribal people in the Andaman and Nicobar islands, even in Great Nicobar".
Beyond the direct impact on indigenous communities, the project requires the felling of nearly a million trees, leading to extensive habitat destruction and an estimated release of 4.3 million tonnes of CO2.
This scale of deforestation will inevitably increase human-wildlife conflict and disrupt the delicate ecosystem, impacting species reliant on the island's unique environment.
Unprepared Hands
The Project Proponent's Capacity
Questions have also been raised about the capability of ANIIDCO, the government agency entrusted with the project's execution.
Incorporated with the stated goal of developing natural resources "in an environment-friendly way," ANIIDCO was criticized for lacking critical capacity when appointed as the project proponent in July 2020. This included the absence of an environmental policy, specialized environmental staff, and a human-resources department.
The Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of the MoEFCC, in May 2021, questioned ANIIDCO's environmental governance framework, to which the corporation admitted its shortcomings.
Despite this, the EAC granted environmental clearance in November 2022. This apparent lack of experience in managing high-profile, high-risk ventures of this environmental and social sensitivity further deepens concerns about the project's long-term sustainability and accountability.
The rapid pace of project development and the appointment of an inexperienced proponent have led some to question the underlying motives, suggesting strategic rather than purely economic or developmental considerations are at play.
A Reckoning on the Horizon
Balancing Ambition with Responsibility
The Great Nicobar mega project stands as a complex, high-stakes confluence of national ambition, economic aspiration, and profound environmental and social risks. While the government champions its strategic importance for India's maritime security and its potential to unlock economic growth through trade and tourism, a critical examination reveals a project fraught with challenges and controversies.
The concerns regarding transparency, legal processes, and long-term viability are not mere bureaucratic hurdles; they are fundamental questions about ethical governance, environmental responsibility, and human rights.
The systematic denial of information, the alleged circumvention of environmental laws, the denotification of protected areas, and the deeply flawed process of obtaining consent from vulnerable indigenous communities paint a troubling picture.
The economic viability of a port in a crowded shipping landscape, the immense risks posed by the island's geological instability, and the potentially catastrophic demographic impacts on the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes all demand a far more cautious and considered approach.
As writer Amitav Ghosh aptly put it, these plans are "a perfect example of 'disaster capitalism'," leveraging displacement and perceived development needs for a "senseless plan".
The proposed mitigation measures, such as relocating corals or creating new turtle sanctuaries, are viewed with skepticism by experts who question their efficacy and acknowledge that such actions cannot truly replace the region's unique biogeographical characteristics.
The fate of Great Nicobar Island, its ancient forests, its unique species, and its indigenous people, now hangs in the balance.
This mega project, if it proceeds as currently planned, risks becoming a tragic example of development without discernment, a testament to unchecked ambition overriding ecological wisdom and human dignity.
For India, and indeed for the world, the story of Great Nicobar offers a vital lesson: true progress is not measured by the scale of concrete and steel, but by the thoughtful balance struck between human aspirations and the delicate, irreplaceable web of life.
The parameters of sustainable development, particularly in ecologically fragile areas, must be built on inclusive governance, transparent decision-making, and a sincere, unequivocal respect for the rights of nature and its original inhabitants.
The question remains: will India choose to listen to the warnings from its own experts and indigenous communities, or will the allure of strategic might and economic gain lead to an irreversible loss on this irreplaceable island? The world watches.
Post a Comment