New Delhi: The ₹72,000 crore (about US$8.9 billion) Great Nicobar Development Project, an ambitious infrastructure endeavor by the Indian government, has reignited fervent discussions across social media.
Officially named the “Holistic Development of Great Nicobar Island,” this initiative seeks to elevate the southernmost island in the Andaman and Nicobar chain into a pivotal economic and strategic center. Yet, its revival in public conversations—driven by fresh political criticisms, environmental alarms and tribal rights concerns—has amplified worries about its long-term ecological and human consequences.
Also Read: NGT imposes ₹100-Cr fine on Haryana Govt for environmental loss
Triggering the latest wave of attention
The current social media surge stems largely from Congress Parliamentary Party Chairperson Sonia Gandhi’s pointed opinion piece in The Hindu on September 8, titled “The Making of an Ecological Disaster in the Nicobar.” In it, she brands the project a “grave misadventure” that endangers indigenous tribes, devastates unique rainforests, and bypasses legal safeguards. Gandhi highlights how the project could uproot the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes, noting that the Nicobarese—still healing from the 2004 tsunami—face permanent displacement from ancestral lands. For the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG), she warns of severed access to forests, violating the Shompen Policy and threatening their survival.
Her critique echoes prior concerns from Congress figures like Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh, who in early 2025 decried it as a “recipe for ecological and humanitarian disaster” for ignoring the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and tribal consultations. This has fueled viral threads on X, such as one by @ARanganathan72, noting opposition from “China, Pakistan, and Sonia Gandhi” while support comes from the Indian Armed Forces and PM Narendra Modi. Another post by @thehawkeyex questions if the backlash protects “international port lobbies or China’s defense interests”. Conversely, critics like @Notabhakt4200 compare it to “Himachal 2.0,” warning of disasters from unchecked development.
Also Read: India a beacon of hope for fight against climate change: IREDA
Polarization is evident: Proponents, including @Tushar15_ emphasize its Indo-Pacific leverage with a visual map of benefits, while detractors like @southxsouthasia share Ramesh’s view of it as “hell-bent on inflicting disaster”. As of September 8, 2025, searches show over 20 recent X posts, with hashtags like #GreatNicobarProject trending, blending strategic praise and ecological outrage.
Project blueprint: Strategic ambitions amid risks
Envisioned under the Narendra Modi administration, the project covers 160+ square kilometers and includes:
International Transshipment Port: A deep-water facility to rival Singapore and Colombo, enhancing India’s role in global trade and maritime security.
Also Read: Wildlife survey on in Kaimur sanctuary to declare it as tiger reserve
International Airport: To spur tourism and connectivity, potentially tripling the island’s under-10,000 population.
Coastal Township: Housing for workers and visitors, fostering economic growth.
Power Plant: Ensuring energy independence for all components.
Advocates argue it counters China’s Indian Ocean expansion, generates jobs, and bolsters defense. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) asserts rigorous ecological evaluations, with phased safeguards. Recent updates indicate no official government response to Gandhi’s critique as of September 8, though prior statements emphasize national priorities.
Also Read: Centre shifts focus on marine biodiversity & climate mitigation
To add depth, the project’s strategic value lies in its proximity to the Malacca Strait, a chokepoint for global shipping. Experts note it could handle 16 million containers annually by 2050, positioning India as a maritime powerhouse. However, a August 2025 court submission challenged a “confidential” report downplaying ecological overlaps, highlighting ongoing legal scrutiny.
Ecological and humanitarian perils: A ticking time bomb?
Great Nicobar boasts unparalleled biodiversity: Two national parks, a UNESCO biosphere reserve and habitats for species like the Nicobar Megapode, leatherback turtles and endemic shrews. Critics, including Gandhi, estimate 8.5 lakh to 5.8 million trees felled—15% of the island’s land—deeming compensatory afforestation in distant Haryana inadequate and farcical, especially as some land was auctioned for mining.
Also Read: Indian Ocean to remain in near-permanent heatwave by 2100: Study
The 2021 denotification of Galathea Bay Sanctuary for the port endangers turtle nesting and coral reefs, violating Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. Gandhi criticizes the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for procedural flaws, like excluding independent science and sidelining bodies like the Salim Ali Centre. Tourism influx could exacerbate pollution, habitat loss, and seismic vulnerabilities in this earthquake-prone zone.
On the human front, the Shompen Policy mandates welfare priority, yet tribal reserves are denotified without consent. The Tribal Council revoked its no-objection certificate, citing rushed processes, and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes was bypassed. Gandhi warns of cultural erosion for these communities, still recovering from past traumas. Recent analyses suggest the project ignores post-tsunami lessons, risking similar vulnerabilities.
Also Read: India-Nepal to sign MoU for biodiversity conservation
Navigating development vs. preservation: Lessons and paths forward
This project exemplifies India’s perennial dilemma: Balancing growth with sustainability. Supporters view it as essential for economic self-reliance and global stature, but opponents decry it as shortsighted, prioritizing cronies over ecosystems—evidenced by alleged electoral bond ties. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) continues oversight, with calls for transparency amid claims of silenced experts.
To enhance value, consider global parallels: Singapore’s Tuas Port expansion balanced ecology with offsets, offering a model for India. Stakeholder engagement, like involving tribes in eco-tourism, could mitigate risks. As Gandhi urges, rethinking this “misadventure” is vital: “Our commitment to future generations cannot permit this large-scale destruction.”
Social media’s role amplifies grassroots voices, from @djdiglipur’s alarm over rushed clearances to @tanujpuniaINC’s endorsement of Gandhi’s piece. With no government rebuttal yet, the discourse presses for accountability. The project’s fate could redefine India’s approach to inclusive, resilient development in fragile frontiers.
