Context

• The Great Nicobar Island Project, spearheaded by the Narendra Modi government, is an ambitious undertaking that seeks to transform the island into a strategic hub of maritime and air connectivity in the Indian Ocean Region.
• The plan envisions an International Container Transhipment Terminal (ICTT) with a capacity of 14.2 million TEUs, a greenfield international airport, a 450 MVA gas and solar-based power plant, and a 16,610-hectare township.
• While the project is promoted as a model of balanced development, promising infrastructure growth, employment opportunities, and enhanced defence capabilities, it also raises questions concerning ecological sustainability, tribal rights, and long-term social implications.

Strategic and Economic Significance

• The location of Great Nicobar at the mouth of the Malacca Strait makes it vital for India’s strategic interests.
• A modern transhipment hub will allow India to compete with existing global shipping centres and reduce dependence on foreign ports.
• Likewise, the airport and power facilities will strengthen connectivity and support both civilian and military operations in a region of increasing geopolitical competition.
• The project, therefore, is positioned not merely as an economic catalyst but as a cornerstone of India’s national security and maritime policy.

Environmental Scrutiny and Mitigation

• Given the island’s rich biodiversity and fragile ecosystem, environmental safeguards have been emphasised in project documentation.
• Detailed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plans (EMP) were prepared, supported by inputs from reputed research organisations such as the Zoological Survey of India, the Botanical Survey of India, SACON, and the Wildlife Institute of India.
• Mitigation strategies include:
  • Allocation of over ₹81 crore to conservation initiatives even before construction.
  • A disaster management framework addressing both natural and anthropogenic risks.
  • Retention of green zones and creation of wildlife corridors to safeguard arboreal and marine species.
  • Compensatory afforestation in Haryana, in line with the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, since over 75% of the Union Territory is already under forest cover.
• Nonetheless, the environmental trade-offs remain significant.
• Over 18.65 lakh trees could be affected across 130.75 sq. km of forest land, raising concerns about long-term ecological damage despite mitigation plans.

Tribal Rights and Welfare Provisions

• The project’s most contentious dimension concerns its implications for the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes, both classified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).
• Official assurances claim that the project will not displace tribal populations, as the only inhabited areas, such as New Chingen and Rajiv Nagar, will remain untouched.
• Measures to safeguard tribal rights include:
  • Consultations with the Anthropological Survey of India, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and the Andaman Adim Janjati Vikas Samiti (AAJVS).
  • Compliance with the Shompen Policy (2015) and the Jarawa Policy (2004), which mandate prioritisation of tribal welfare in development decisions.
  • De-notification of 73.07 sq. km of Tribal Reserve land for the project, offset by re-notification of 76.98 sq. km, resulting in a marginal net increase of protected tribal land.
  • Formation of committees to monitor tribal welfare during project execution.
• While these provisions suggest sensitivity to tribal concerns, the displacement of traditional land, even with compensatory reallocation, invites scrutiny.
• Land is not only an economic resource but also a cultural and spiritual anchor for indigenous communities.
• Critics may argue that bureaucratic assurances cannot fully capture the long-term social and cultural disruption such projects can trigger.

Challenges and the Way Forward: Balancing Development with Ecology and Identity

• The government frames the Great Nicobar Project as a synthesis of economy and ecology, promoting growth while safeguarding environment and culture.
• Its phased execution, stretching to 2047, demonstrates long-term vision. By limiting the footprint to just 2% of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands’ total area, proponents argue that the project balances ecological and strategic needs.
• However, balancing growth with sustainability is complex.
• Development-driven deforestation, compensatory afforestation outside the islands, and potential disruptions to tribal ways of life raise fundamental questions about whether modernisation can truly coexist with ecological conservation and indigenous protection.

Conclusion

• The Great Nicobar Island Project embodies India’s attempt to align its strategic imperatives with developmental goals while maintaining a veneer of environmental and tribal sensitivity.
• On paper, the project incorporates safeguards, consultations, and compensatory measures.
• Yet, the real test will lie in its execution, whether commitments to ecology and tribal welfare are honoured not just formally but substantively.
• Ultimately, the project reflects the broader dilemma faced by developing nations: the pursuit of rapid economic and strategic advancement while upholding principles of sustainability and cultural integrity.