‘Unacceptable’: Cong flays ‘forced’ acquisition of tribals’ lands in Great Nicobar – Yes Punjab News

India’s ambitious Rs 92,000-crore plan for Great Nicobar Island has ignited a fresh political and ecological storm. A senior Congress leader has alleged that district authorities are coercing Indigenous families to part with ancestral holdings, calling the reported pressure “unacceptable” and warning of irreparable harm to one of the country’s most sensitive island ecosystems. The Union government, however, maintains that the project has been cleared after rigorous scrutiny and is of strategic and national importance.

Allegations of pressure and dispossession

Opposition leaders have criticized what they describe as forced acquisition of land from Nicobarese and Shompen communities—two groups whose cultural continuity is closely tied to territory, forests, and nearshore waters. The complaint centres on reports that local officials are urging families to surrender customary plots for a multi-component development that includes a transshipment port, an airport, and new urban infrastructure. Calling the push “an ecological disaster,” the Congress has demanded a halt and reassessment.

Government’s defence: due process and strategic rationale

The Environment Ministry has rejected allegations that environmental safeguards were sidelined. Officials say the project advanced under the procedures of the EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended), which requires multiple stages—screening, scoping, public consultation, and expert appraisal—before any clearance. Authorities cite the island’s strategic position and defence significance as key considerations alongside ecological impacts.

The environmental appraisal drew on work by statutory and specialized institutions, including the Zoological Survey of India, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Wildlife Institute of India, Indian Institute of Science, Indian Institutes of Technology, the National Institute of Ocean Technology, the National Centre for Coastal Research, and the National Institute of Oceanography. An independent Expert Appraisal Committee vetted the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Plan, and the final clearance reportedly carries dozens of conditions to safeguard marine and terrestrial biodiversity. Three monitoring groups—covering pollution, biodiversity, and welfare issues related to the Shompen and Nicobarese—have been mandated to oversee implementation. A High-Power Committee was also constituted following an order of the National Green Tribunal dated April 3, 2023.

Ecology at stake, say critics

Great Nicobar’s lowland rainforests, mangroves, and coral-fringed shores support nesting sea turtles, endemic birds, and intricate food webs that are highly sensitive to disturbance. Scientists and conservationists caution that large-scale dredging, coastal reshaping, and land clearing could alter currents, increase turbidity, fragment habitats, and heighten collision risks for wildlife, especially in and around major nesting beaches. They also point to the Andaman–Nicobar arc’s seismic history and the compounding threat of sea-level rise, arguing that both climate and geophysical hazards should be central to the design footprint, buffers, and evacuation planning.

Supporters of the project counter that modern mitigation—ranging from adaptive coastal engineering to long-term biodiversity monitoring—can reduce risks while delivering connectivity, logistics capacity, and jobs to a remote frontier. The gulf between these positions turns on whether mitigation can keep pace with the scale and speed of construction, and how enforcement will work on the ground.

Courts and professional voices

Petitions challenging aspects of the project are being heard in the Calcutta High Court and the National Green Tribunal. Meanwhile, environmental professionals and urban planners have filed representations highlighting concerns over habitat loss, freshwater security, and cumulative impacts that may not be fully captured in segmented appraisals.

Technology promises vs. implementation gaps

Authorities point to modelling of waves and sediment flows, real-time pollution tracking, and biodiversity management plans as evidence that environmental risks are being tackled with contemporary tools. For these measures to be credible, independent audits, transparent data portals, and continuous publication of monitoring results will be crucial. Equally vital are clear grievance redress systems and demonstrable adherence to free, prior, and informed consent—especially for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups—so that community agency and cultural survival are not subordinated to timelines.

The core questions

• Can marine and forest safeguards remain effective over multiple construction cycles and operational phases?
• Will Indigenous consent, compensation, and benefit-sharing meet international and domestic standards, and be verified independently?
• How will climate resilience—storm surge, sea-level rise, and seismic risk—reshape design choices and long-term costs?
• Can oversight committees exercise teeth, and will their findings be public and enforceable?

What to watch next

• Outcomes of proceedings in the National Green Tribunal and the Calcutta High Court
• Findings from the High-Power Committee and the three monitoring panels
• Details of land acquisition notices, consent protocols, and resettlement packages
• Public release of environmental monitoring data and compliance reports

Great Nicobar has become a test case for whether India can balance strategic infrastructure with ecological integrity and Indigenous rights. The answers will be written not in policy papers but in the forests cleared—or spared—and in the transparency and trust that accompany every step of implementation.