Democracy demands a public debate on Great Nicobar’s environmental and strategic costs

During his visit to Great Nicobar island, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has drawn national attention to the proposed Great Nicobar Holistic Development Project — a deep-sea transhipment port and allied infrastructure valued at around Rs 80,000 crore.

He denounced it as the “largest theft of India’s ecological property” and “one of the biggest scams” in Indian history, describing it “destruction dressed in development’s language.” The project involves clearing 160 sq km of pristine forest, with nearly a million trees likely to be felled. Gandhi alleged that tribal communities were misled into granting consent, and that ancestral lands were being handed to the Adani Group.

The project has been deeply controversial ever since it was proposed by Niti Ayog in 2021 and more specifically, when the National Green Tribunal upheld its environmental clearance in February citing its ‘strategic importance’. Its location — 150 km from the Malacca Strait’s western entrance — can give India leverage over one of the world’s busiest maritime chokepoints.

The centrepiece of the project is an international transhipment port at Galathea Bay (Rs 40,000 crore), alongside a greenfield airport, a township of over 16,610 hectares, and a gas-solar plant. Critics warn of devastating ecological consequences: loss of mangroves, threats to endangered species such as the leatherback turtle, saltwater crocodile, Nicobar megapode, and Nicobar macaque. Indigenous Shompen tribes, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), face existential risks from disease exposure due to the influx of outsiders.

Great Nicobar also sits on a seismic fault-line. The 2004 tsunami, triggered by an earthquake near the island, sank its southern tip by 15 feet — raising questions about the wisdom of building massive infrastructure in such a vulnerable zone.

Gandhi has primarily addressed the ecological fallout of the project and questions of process and accountability. He has not, however, discussed the strategic ambitions that underlie the project. Formally framed as a commercial transhipment hub, it is in fact visualised as a ‘dual-use’ facility under the control of the Indian Navy.

Great Nicobar straddles the ‘Six Degree Channel’ — a 163-km wide maritime channel (named after 6-degrees North latitude), which separates the island from Indonesia’s Aceh province. It is a deep and clear channel, preferred by the world’s largest container ships and tankers to enter the Malacca Strait.

Over 70% of China’s oil passes through Malacca, making it a critical vulnerability, known as China’s ‘Malacca dilemma’. From Great Nicobar, India could monitor or even interdict Chinese shipping, while also overseeing alternative routes through Sunda and Lombok Straits (connecting the Java Sea with the Indian Ocean).

Great Nicobar also has excellent potential as a commercial transhipment hub as nearly 90,000 merchant ships sail through the Malacca Strait annually. It is equidistant from competitive transhipment hubs at Singapore, Colombo, and Klang (Malaysia), which currently handle 75% of India’s transhipment cargo. Official estimates suggest that the development will save India more than $250 million annually in logistics costs.

However, the government must clarify why the facility is described as a dual-use project. The greenfield airport (even if maintained by the Airports Authority of India), deep berths, fuel storage facilities, and surveillance infrastructure are essentially military assets. The total investment of Rs 81,000 crore represents only 12% of the defence budget (2025-2026) spread over 30 years of project development. The government can afford to fund it on its own. Why then is the project being described as a joint venture?

It is also unclear why the existing naval facility on the island, INS Baaz, cannot be expanded at a marginal cost compared to the huge financial and ecological cost of creating one more facility. The base at Campbell Bay already monitors the Six Degree Channel.

Perhaps, the government’s ambiguity is deliberate as developing it only as a military base could complicate relations with the ASEAN countries, especially Indonesia, with whom India conducts confidence building naval exercises in the Andaman Sea.

However, the government will have to be transparent with Parliament because the project’s strategic aspects could create international complications and possible counter moves by China. Even a transhipment port might threaten Chinese-funded transhipment ports in Sri Lanka and Singapore.

Parliament must also be told whether the Indian Navy already has the material and men to exploit the facility or whether India needs to acquire new submarines and maritime surveillance aircraft to support credible strategic projection from Great Nicobar.

The commercial framing of the project by the Narendra Modi government cannot be allowed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny on strategic matters. They can be discussed in defence and external affairs parliamentary committees or through privileged briefing of Opposition leaders.

Other questions can be opened to a broader and public discussion. Gandhi has asked whether the environmental clearance process was compromised. The Ministry of Environment’s Expert Appraisal Committee has also admitted that ecological impacts on endemic flora and fauna were ‘mostly unknown’. Yet clearances were granted piecemeal — for port, airport, powerplant, and township — rather than through an integrated assessment. It is also unclear why the Great Nicobar’s UNESCO-protected bioreserve status was ignored and coastal zone regulations suddenly overridden.

Claims of consent from the Shompen remain dubious. How could a group with minimal outside contact provide ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ under the Forest Rights Act provisions? The government has also not explained the disease-protection protocols to the public which will be at severe risk as the island’s current population of 8,000-8,500 (of them, about 400 Shompen) increases by 650,000 outsiders. A formal warning was issued by 39 genocide scholars in February 2024 that the project risks potential genocide of the Shompen.

Gandhi alleges the project is a corporate gift to Gautam Adani. While 11 entities expressed interest in the 50-year concession, it is unclear if Adani has been awarded the project. Given Adani’s perceived proximity to the government, transparency is essential. Concession terms — revenue sharing, viability gap funding, land lease, sovereign guarantees — must be made public. Parliament and taxpayers deserve clarity on who bears losses if container traffic fails to materialise against competition from Singapore and Colombo. 

Gandhi has promised to raise these issues in Parliament, but the debate must extend beyond. The project raises fundamental questions: Is India disguising military infrastructure as commercial development? Were ecological safeguards bypassed for strategic expediency? Are tribal rights being trampled? Is corporate favouritism undermining transparency and accountability? The ecological, tribal, and governance costs demand scrutiny not just in Parliament but in a national public debate.

(Bharat Bhushan is a Delhi-based journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.