Balancing growth & responsibility

Few infrastructure projects in India today combine strategic ambition, economic promise, and ecological sensitivity as starkly as the Great Nicobar Island Development Project. The plan—comprising a transshipment port, international airport, power plant, and a new township—has drawn attention well beyond the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. For its supporters, it represents an opportunity to make India a stronger maritime power in the Indo-Pacific. For its critics, it risks irreversibly altering one of the country’s most fragile ecosystems.

Looking beyond these binaries, the project offers a case study in how India manages the intersection of development, environment, and indigenous rights in the 21st century. The decisions taken here will shape not only Great Nicobar’s future but also India’s reputation as a nation capable of balancing growth with sustainability.

Great Nicobar’s location is central to the project’s appeal. Situated near the Malacca Strait—one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world—the island is geographically positioned to host a transshipment hub that could serve a large share of regional maritime traffic. Currently, a significant portion of India’s container cargo is transshipped through ports like Colombo, Singapore, and Klang, which increases logistics costs and limits India’s ability to fully control its maritime trade routes.

A deep-draft transshipment port at Galathea Bay could, in theory, reduce these dependencies. Alongside, the proposed international airport aims to improve connectivity, while the township would provide housing, healthcare, and education to settlers and local residents. The power plant is designed to support this new infrastructure, and together the components are projected to create jobs and stimulate economic activity.

In an era when India seeks to play a greater role in Indo-Pacific security and trade, the project aligns with broader strategic priorities. It is no coincidence that policymakers describe it as part of the “Act East” vision. Yet the very qualities that make Great Nicobar valuable also make it vulnerable. The island is home to tropical rainforests, mangroves, coral reefs, and coastal ecosystems that are among the richest in biodiversity in India. Galathea Bay, where the port is planned, is recognized as an ecologically sensitive area. It includes nesting grounds for marine turtles, including the leatherback turtle, which is globally endangered.

According to government documents, around 130 sq km of forest land is to be diverted, and official estimates suggest the felling of about 8.5 lakh trees. Ecologists warn that the true number could be several million, depending on forest density and the final footprint of construction. Beyond trees, the concern is about cascading effects—loss of habitat, disruption of carbon storage, and changes to hydrology that can destabilize island ecosystems.

These concerns are not abstract. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami devastated parts of the Nicobar Islands, reminding us of the seismic vulnerability of the region. Building large-scale infrastructure in such a zone adds another layer of risk that needs careful mitigation.

The environmental clearance process has already faced legal challenges. Petitions before the Calcutta High Court allege violations of the Forest Rights Act, which requires the consent of tribal communities before forest land can be diverted. The government maintains that due process has been followed, but the matter remains contested. Separately, the National Green Tribunal has been reviewing the project’s environmental clearance, with inputs from high-level expert committees.

The island is also home to indigenous communities, notably the Nicobarese and the Shompens. The Shompens, classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, have minimal contact with the outside world. Any large influx of settlers or significant land-use changes could affect their way of life, cultural identity, and survival. Even if resettlement is not explicitly part of the project, indirect pressures such as reduced access to resources, increased disease exposure, or cultural disruption could follow.

It is tempting to cast the debate as one between development and conservation, but this framing misses the larger opportunity. The real challenge is whether India can pursue development in a way that integrates ecological and social safeguards from the start.

Globally, there are examples of infrastructure projects in sensitive zones that succeeded when phased development, strict environmental management, and community participation were built into the design. Conversely, projects that neglected these factors often delivered less than promised while leaving behind ecological or social costs that outweighed the benefits.

India, positioning itself as a leader of the Global South on climate change and sustainable development, cannot afford a contradiction between its international stance and domestic practice. If it pushes forward with a project of this magnitude without visible safeguards, it risks reputational costs in addition to ecological ones.

Rather than treating the Great Nicobar project as an all-or-nothing proposition, policymakers could pursue a forward-looking approach that allows for both strategic development and ecological responsibility. Some elements worth considering:

Transparent Environmental Assessments: Independent, studies should be commissioned to evaluate the ecological impact, and the results must be made public. This would build trust and allow mid-course corrections.

Tribal Consent:Indigenous communities should be part of decision-making, not passive recipients of outcomes. Mechanisms for benefit-sharing, cultural preservation, land rights protection are essential.

Phased and Adaptive Development: Instead of executing all components simultaneously, the project could begin with pilot phases—such as limited port operations—while monitoring ecological and social effects. Lessons learned can inform later stages.

Green Infrastructure Design: The township, port, and airport can incorporate renewable energy, advanced waste management, and habitat protection features. Building resilience into design is critical in a seismically active region.

Independent Oversight: Robust monitoring by parliamentary committees, courts, and civil society can ensure compliance with environmental and social safeguards. Oversight should not be viewed as a hurdle but as an accountability measure that strengthens outcomes.

The Great Nicobar project is more than a local development scheme. It is a test of how India envisions nation-building in a century where sustainability cannot be an afterthought. Proceeding without adequate safeguards could set a precedent of sidelining ecology and indigenous rights. But reshaping the project into a model of inclusive, eco-sensitive development could demonstrate that India can reconcile ambition with responsibility. Nation-building demands vision tempered with foresight. Strategic gains from ports and airports will be short-lived if they come at the cost of biodiversity collapse or cultural loss. Conversely, a project that integrates ecological resilience and community rights could anchor India’s maritime presence reinforcing its commitment to sustainable development. 

The Great Nicobar project does not have to be a gamble. It can be an investment in both strategic security and ecological stewardship—if it is approached with caution, transparency, and adaptability. The choice is not between growth and sustainability but between reckless growth and resilient growth.