Congress flags tribal land concerns, calls Great Nicobar project an ecological disaster

Mounting tensions over the ambitious Great Nicobar Island development plan have resurfaced, with the Congress alleging that indigenous families are being pushed to surrender ancestral land for the multi-thousand-crore project. The party’s senior leader and former environment minister Jairam Ramesh sharply criticized the plan, branding it an “ecological disaster” and warning that the rights of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities are at risk.

Claims of pressure on indigenous families

According to the opposition, local authorities are exerting pressure on tribal residents to clear the way for airports, townships, and associated infrastructure. Ramesh argued that the approach reflects a disregard for the island’s ecological fragility and the cultural continuity of its communities. He reiterated that expert warnings about biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, and coastal vulnerability have not been adequately heeded.

The controversy is unfolding alongside ongoing legal proceedings, with challenges reportedly being considered in the Calcutta High Court and before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Critics maintain that any land acquisition and project execution in Great Nicobar must meet the highest thresholds of environmental due diligence and free, prior, and informed consent from affected communities.

Environment ministry’s defense: strategic need and layered scrutiny

The Union Environment Ministry has consistently defended the project’s approvals, asserting that it underwent comprehensive appraisal under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Officials say the decision to proceed factored in ecological sensitivities as well as national, strategic, and defense imperatives tied to the island’s location in the Indian Ocean.

As per the Ministry, the clearance followed the standard sequence of screening, scoping, public consultation, and expert appraisal. An Environmental Management Plan was prepared to address anticipated impacts, with mitigation measures spanning terrestrial, coastal, and marine systems.

Scientific inputs and conditions imposed

Multiple statutory and research bodies were engaged to evaluate risks and trade-offs. Assessments and studies drew on work by organizations including the Zoological Survey of India, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Wildlife Institute of India, and the Indian Institute of Science. Independent technical institutions—such as IITs, the National Institute of Ocean Technology, the National Centre for Coastal Research, and the National Institute of Oceanography—were also cited in the appraisal process.

Following review by an independent Expert Appraisal Committee comprising specialists in science and engineering, the project was cleared with a suite of specific safeguards. According to the Ministry, 42 conditions were attached to the approval, targeting protection of coral reefs, mangroves, endemic flora and fauna, and migratory bird habitats, as well as stricter protocols for waste, wastewater, and emissions management.

Monitoring architecture and compliance oversight

To strengthen accountability, the clearance reportedly mandates the creation of three separate monitoring committees focused on pollution control, biodiversity protection, and the welfare of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities. In addition, a High-Powered Committee was constituted following an NGT order dated April 3, 2023, to supervise compliance and verify whether environmental safeguards are being implemented as designed.

Officials argue that this multilayered oversight—paired with adaptive management plans and periodic audits—will minimize ecological risk while enabling strategic infrastructure. They also underscore that the island’s development blueprint includes provisions for habitat restoration, coastal zone regulation adherence, and measures aimed at reducing cumulative impacts across project components.

Ecology versus expansion: a widening fault line

Despite the assurances, the Great Nicobar project remains a lightning rod for political and scientific debate. Ecologists caution that development at this scale may irreversibly alter a biodiversity hotspot marked by sensitive tropical forests, carbon-rich soils, and complex nearshore ecosystems. The island’s geological setting and exposure to cyclones, tsunamis, and sea-level rise add additional layers of risk, calling for conservative thresholds in planning and construction.

On the social front, rights advocates emphasize that indigenous communities rely on intact forests and marine resources for sustenance and cultural continuity. They argue that any relocation, even if formally voluntary, must be approached with extraordinary care, taking into account language barriers, community governance traditions, and customary land practices.

What comes next

The government’s insistence on the project’s strategic value sets the stage for a prolonged tug-of-war between infrastructure imperatives and conservation ethics. As judicial scrutiny continues, the core questions remain: can ecological safeguards and institutional oversight adequately contain the risks; will indigenous rights be protected in spirit as well as in law; and how will cumulative impacts be tracked over time as individual project components advance?

For now, the dispute underscores a broader national challenge: aligning large-scale development with the realities of climate vulnerability, biodiversity loss, and the protection of India’s most marginalized communities. The outcome on Great Nicobar will likely shape how similar projects are evaluated—and contested—across the country’s fragile frontiers.