Why in News: The ₹72,000 crore Great Nicobar mega-project faces criticism for tribal displacement, ecological damage, and legal violations in a disaster-prone zone.
Introduction
- The Great Nicobar Island (GNI) Mega-Infrastructure Project, with an estimated cost of ₹72,000 crore, envisages the construction of a transshipment port, international airport, township, and power plant.
- While projected as a strategic and developmental initiative, the project has triggered widespread criticism due to its potential ecological devastation, displacement of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), and disregard for constitutional and legal safeguards.
- This case exemplifies the conflict between economic ambitions and environmental-tribal rights, raising serious questions of justice and sustainability.
Background of the Project
- Components: Deep-sea port, international airport, power station, township.
- Stated Objective: Enhance India’s maritime security, trade competitiveness, and connectivity under Act East Policy.
- Funding & Scale: ₹72,000 crore, one of the largest island development projects in India.
Threat to Indigenous Communities
1. Displacement of Tribals:
- Nicobarese: Already displaced by 2004 tsunami; project blocks their return to ancestral villages.
- Shompen: A PVTG with fragile socio-economic existence; project denotifies parts of their tribal reserve.
2. Violation of Legal Safeguards:
- Article 338A: NCST should have been consulted – ignored.
- Forest Rights Act, 2006: Shompen’s right to manage forests neglected.
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013: SIA omits tribal stakeholders.
- Tribal Council’s Revoked Consent: Initially rushed into a No-Objection Letter, later withdrawn.
3. Impact: Erosion of cultural identity, loss of traditional livelihoods, social alienation.
Ecological and Environmental Concerns
1. Deforestation:
- MoEFCC: 8.5 lakh trees may be cut.
- Independent estimates: 32–58 lakh trees.
- Loss of old-growth, biodiversity-rich rainforest – irreplaceable.
2. Compensatory Afforestation Fallacy:
- Planned in Haryana, ecologically mismatched.
- Land partly auctioned for mining – undermining the very idea.
3. Wildlife and Marine Ecology:
- CRZ-IA Violation: Port overlaps with turtle nesting sites and coral reefs.
- Species at Risk: Dugongs, Nicobar macaques, leatherback turtles.
- Flawed biodiversity surveys (off-season nesting study, drone-based dugong assessment).
4. Seismic Vulnerability:
- 2004 tsunami: Land subsidence of ~15 feet.
- July 2025: Magnitude 6.2 quake reaffirms risks.
- Locating critical infrastructure here invites disaster.
Governance and Procedural Concerns
1. Opaque Process:
- High-Powered Committee report on CRZ reclassification not made public.
- SIA and EIA conducted under questionable conditions.
2. Bypassing Institutions:
- NCST, Tribal Council, and FRA rights ignored.
- Hasty approvals from statutory bodies undermine deliberative democracy.
3. Democratic Deficit:
- Tribal voices marginalized.
- Violates principles of free, prior, and informed consent.
Ethical and Constitutional Dimensions
- Justice for the Marginalized: Betrayal of national commitment to protect PVTGs.
- Environmental Ethics: Short-term economic gains vs. intergenerational equity.
- Constitutional Morality: Articles 21 (right to life), 48A (environmental protection), 338A (tribal rights) sidelined.
- Directive Principles: Conflict with sustainable development goals.
Alternatives and Way Forward
1. Strategic Objectives, Minimal Footprint:
- Smaller-scale port and infrastructure aligned with ecological limits.
2. Community-Centric Development:
- Incorporate tribal council recommendations.
- Promote eco-tourism and traditional livelihoods.
3. Rigorous Environmental Scrutiny:
- Transparent biodiversity studies.
- Independent expert committees to evaluate impact.
4. Legal and Ethical Compliance:
- Enforce FRA, NCST, and CRZ safeguards.
- Strengthen EIA/SIA processes with public accountability.
5. Disaster Resilience Planning:
- Align project with seismic and tsunami risk mitigation.
- Prefer adaptive, nature-based solutions over hard infrastructure.
Conclusion
True development must reconcile strategic objectives with ecological balance and social justice. Protecting the Nicobarese, Shompen, and the island’s unique biodiversity is not merely a policy choice but a constitutional and moral imperative.
UPSC Relevance
GS Paper II (Governance, Polity & Social Justice):
- Rights of Indigenous Communities (PVTGs: Shompen, Nicobarese)
GS Paper III (Environment, Economy & Disaster Management):
- Deforestation, biodiversity loss, CRZ violations, compensatory afforestation debates
Mains Practice Question
Q. The Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project has been hailed as a strategic asset but criticised as an ecological and humanitarian disaster. Critically analyse its implications for tribal rights, ecological sustainability, and disaster resilience, while suggesting a balanced way forward. (250 words)