Great Nicobar Project a “grave misadventure, trampling tribal rights; mockery of legal process”: Sonia

In a reiteration of the party’s repeated objections to the much-vaunted Great Nicobar Project, the Congress’ Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi has termed the Union government’s mega-infrastructure plan a “grave misadventure” — one that threatens to displace vulnerable tribal communities, destroy an ecologically fragile habitat and violate multiple laws in the process.

Writing in an op-ed for The Hindu which was published today, on 8 September, the Congress leader has accused the government of pushing forward with the Rs 72,000-crore development plan in complete disregard of Constitutional safeguards and environmental concerns.

The ambitious project — which includes the construction of a transshipment port, an airport, a power plant and a township — is being promoted by the Centre as a strategic and economic imperative. But critics have repeatedly raised the alarm over the human and ecological costs of such ‘development’ in a pristine, biologically diverse and anthropologically unique territory.

“The Great Nicobar Project is a grave misadventure, trampling on tribal rights and making a mockery of all legal and deliberative processes,” Gandhi wrote.

Violation of tribal rights and constitutional provisions

The Great Nicobar Island, the southernmost part of India situated in the Bay of Bengal, is home to two indigenous tribes – the Nicobarese and the Shompen, the latter being designated a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG). Gandhi noted that both communities have coexisted with nature for centuries and depend heavily on the island’s rich biodiversity for their livelihoods.

However, the government’s plan to convert a vast portion of the island into an infrastructure hub will have irreversible consequences for these communities, she warned.

“The Nicobarese, already displaced from their traditional settlements by the 2004 tsunami, face permanent exclusion from their native land,” Gandhi said.

“Ultimately, the Shompen will find themselves cut off from their ancestral lands and unable to sustain their social and economic existence,” Gandhi wrote.

She alleged that the government had bypassed essential processes meant to safeguard tribal interests — with neither the Tribal Councils of Great and Little Nicobar nor the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (a constitutional body under Article 338-A) meaningfully consulted before approving the project.

Moreover, she pointed out that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the local Tribal Council, which had initially been obtained, was later revoked —  with the council claiming they were rushed into signing without obtaining a full understanding. And the government continues to disregard this, rather than engage the community in fresh dialogue.

“Our collective conscience cannot, and must not, stay silent when the very survival of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes is at stake,” Gandhi wrote, “We must raise our voice against this travesty of justice and this betrayal of our national values.”

Environmental threats and legal breaches

The Congress leader reserved her strongest words for the environmental damage she said the project would unleash. The island, which forms part of a UNESCO-designated biosphere reserve, is home to dense forests, coral reefs, nesting grounds to endangered turtles, and several rare and endemic species, including the Nicobar long-tailed macaque.

She warned that the plan to cut down 8,50,000 trees across 15 per cent of the island’s total land would be disastrous for the delicate ecosystem.

“The environmental devastation is hard to even imagine,” she wrote. “The island’s ancient rainforest – rich, undisturbed and deeply connected to the lives of its tribal inhabitants – is set to be destroyed.”

Gandhi described the compensatory afforestation plan as a “farce”, noting that the authorities have proposed planting trees in Haryana, a state far removed from the island’s coastal ecology.

“The idea of planting a few trees in Haryana as compensation is laughable,” she wrote. “Replacing the island’s dense, ancient rainforest with monoculture plantations in far-off Haryana defies all ecological logic.”

She also questioned the quality and timing of the project’s environmental impact assessments. Citing complaints from scientists, she said that key studies were conducted during the off-season, with drone technology that was “ill-suited” for capturing the full complexity of the region’s wildlife.

“Our commitment to future generations cannot permit this large-scale destruction of a most unique ecosystem,” she concluded.

Rushed process and ignored warnings

According to Gandhi, the entire decision-making process around the project reflects a “casualness and arrogance” that has come to characterise the government’s approach to environmental governance.

She expressed concern that project construction is already underway in areas classified under CRZ IA, which strictly prohibits such activity due to the presence of coral reefs and turtle nesting grounds. This, despite the fact that a case is still pending before the National Green Tribunal.

“The country’s tribal communities should not be made to pay the ultimate price for the vanity of the country’s ruling elite,” she said.

Highlighting the broader implications, she noted that the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) conducted under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act failed to include the Shompen tribe at all — despite being among the most affected communities.

She further pointed out that past experiences should have served as a lesson. The 2022 stampede at the Vaishno Devi shrine, for example, led to a three-member inquiry committee whose findings were never made public.

In her concluding words in the column, Gandhi urged the government to reconsider the project, involve all stakeholders in fresh consultations and prioritise sustainable development that respects both ecological integrity and human rights — and also issued a passionate appeal to civil society, environmental groups and citizens at large to oppose the project and defend the rights of tribal communities.

“This is not just an ecological issue; it is a moral one. The people of Great Nicobar deserve a future shaped by inclusion and respect, not imposed from above,” she stated.

“When we destroy these islands, we destroy our own moral compass,” she added.

Government yet to respond

As of the time of publication, there had been no official response from the ministry of environment, forest and climate change (MoEFCC) or the NITI Aayog, which has been a key driver of the Great Nicobar plan.

The project does continue to face opposition from environmentalists, tribal rights groups and a growing section of civil society, with some calling for a complete halt and others advocating for a re-evaluation through democratic processes.

Observers suggest the political fallout may grow if further evidence of legal violations or displacement of tribal populations emerges.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is expected to hear related petitions challenging the ecological clearances granted for the project later this month.