In her editorial “The making of an ecological disaster in the Nicobar” (The Hindu, September 8, 2025), Sonia Gandhi declares the Great Nicobar Project to be a “totally misplaced ₹72,000 crore expenditure” that poses an “existential danger” to the island’s indigenous communities and “threatens one of the world’s most unique flora and fauna ecosystems.” She accuses the Modi government of “trampling on tribal rights” and making “a mockery of all legal and deliberative processes.”

Those are strong words. The cost is huge, the claims are severe: indigenous life at risk, rare ecosystems under threat, tribal rights ignored. These raise serious concerns. But when we look closely at what is known, some of the claims seem overstated or missing important context.

“Uprooting tribals” or Empowering Communities?

Gandhi says the project will “permanently displace” the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes. That sounds catastrophic. Yet, public documents and government plans show that zones for development have been marked carefully, with attempts to reduce overlap with tribal settlements. In fact, part of the project design says that most tribal communities live outside of the core development area or in buffer zones.

Also, Gandhi cites the 2004 tsunami: that event forced Nicobarese people to leave ancestral villages. That was a tragedy, and rebuilding was slow. But now, she argues that current plans are as bad or worse because they threaten permanent uprooting. The truth is mixed: yes, some impact is likely; but “permanent displacement” of all tribal communities seems more an alarmist framing than a guaranteed outcome based on public documents.

“Mockery of due process” or Multiple Layers of Review?

Gandhi argues that “due process and regulatory safeguards have been evaded”, and she points to issues in the Social Impact Assessments. Critics echo this, saying some legal consults have been weak or skipped. But it is also documented that the project has been reviewed by several bodies: environmental clearance was granted by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) in November 2022. There is a national-level appraisal process, expert committees, and expressions of interest (EOI) from private players.

So, while Gandhi’s claim highlights serious complaints, it does not fully reflect the existence of regulatory and review structures. Some parts of due process appear followed; whether they are adequate is a separate question.

“Afforestation as a farce” or Legal Compensatory Plans?

Gandhi calls compensatory afforestation “a gross environmental and humanitarian catastrophe.” She argues that thousands of hectares of forest will be lost, that tree counts are enormous (between 32 and 58 lakh trees in some estimates), and that the land set aside for afforestation is far away in Haryana, even auctioned off for mining in part. 

Official documents confirm some of this: the Forest Conservation Act does require offsets, compensatory afforestation, and environmental safeguards. However, Gandhi’s critique emphasises that the compensatory land being used is ecologically very different, removed geographically, and possibly less effective in balancing what is lost.

Strategic and Economic Context

What Gandhi’s article does not focus on are some strategic and economic arguments for the project, which supporters use to counter ecological and tribal concerns.

• The Galathea Bay site has natural water depths of over 20 metres, which is rare and important for deep-draft ships.

• The port is planned in phases: Phase 1 is expected to be ready by 2028, with capacity to handle about 4 million TEUs. In full build-out, capacity may rise to about 16 million TEUs.

• The estimated cost for the Galathea Bay transshipment port is approximately ₹41,000 crore, of which Phase 1 is about ₹18,000 crore. 

These figures are smaller than the ₹72,000-crore claimed by Gandhi, which seems to refer to the broader “Holistic Development of Great Nicobar” project, encompassing multiple components beyond just the port.

Supporters say the project will reduce dependence on foreign ports (Colombo, Singapore, Klang), bring in foreign direct investment, save foreign exchange, and create significant employment. 

Summary: Where Claims Match Reality, and Where Questions Remain

Sonia Gandhi raises alarming issues: millions of trees cut, communities uprooted, ecosystems at risk, legal safeguards ignored. Some of these claims are backed by credible sources. Others appear to exaggerate or simplify.

• It is true that the project is massive, over a very biodiverse and seismically active region.

• It is also true that indigenous communities (Nicobarese, Shompen) are vulnerable, and that the project touches on their lands or reserves.

• But the claims of total, permanent uprooting of all tribes, or all legal review being bypassed, seem less certain given government documents showing mitigation plans, phased development, and regulatory clearance.

In short, Sonia Gandhi’s article serves as a warning. It forces attention on risks that might otherwise be downplayed. But it also uses strong language and includes claims that go beyond what is clearly established in public sources.

The Great Nicobar Project: India’s Leap Into the Future

♦️The Great Nicobar Project isn’t just an island plan—it’s India’s leap into the future. From global trade to national security, here’s why this project is a game-changer—despite the noise from critics. 👇

The initiative is led by NITI Aayog and implemented through the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO). This partnership between India’s top planning body and the regional development corporation shows how serious the government is about balancing national ambitions with local execution.

🌍 Strategic Edge

Located close to the Malacca Strait, the world’s busiest maritime corridor, Great Nicobar provides India with a rare strategic advantage in the Indo-Pacific region. This narrow stretch of sea carries more than half of global trade and energy shipments. Whoever secures presence here shapes future trade routes.

The project promises a new port, an international airport, and advanced surveillance facilities. Together, these will strengthen India’s maritime security and raise its regional influence. The vision is bold: the new transshipment port + airport will turn India into a true Indo-Pacific power.

Economic Growth & Connectivity

A critical element is the proposed International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT). This will drastically reduce India’s dependence on Colombo, Singapore, and Klang—ports that currently handle much of India’s cargo.

The numbers are significant. Phase 1 alone aims to handle 4 million TEUs. Once the project is scaled up, the capacity will reach 16 million TEUs. This increase is not only about trade; it means smoother logistics, lower costs for Indian exporters, and massive foreign and domestic investment opportunities.

Infrastructure Boost

The plan is to create a 21st-century gateway for India.

The Great Nicobar Island Development Project covers 16,610 hectares and uses the island’s position near the Malacca Strait to its advantage. Its components are ambitious and multi-layered:

• • An International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT)
  • A greenfield international airport
  • Two greenfield cities built with modern infrastructure
  •  A coastal mass rapid transport system
  • A free trade zone for global commerce
  • An international cruise terminal to boost tourism
  • A ship breaking yard to serve global shipping needs

This collection of facilities reflects a long-term vision. The goal is not just one port but a whole ecosystem that integrates security, economy, tourism, and global connectivity.

🌿 Mitigation & Environmental Safeguards

Concerns about the environment have been central to the debate. Yet the project has already received environmental clearance from the MoEFCC’s Expert Appraisal Committee after detailed review.

Safeguards include:

Coral relocation from affected areas

Mangrove offset via afforestation in Haryana’s Aravallis

Creation of conservation sites for turtles, macaques, and shrews

Critics may cry “ecology at risk,” but project planners describe this as green growth, not blind growth. 🌱 These measures show that development and conservation can proceed together when planned carefully.

Tribal Rights & Legal Compliance

A key concern raised is the fate of tribal communities. Here, too, the government has made commitments. Officials state there will be no forced displacement, and that Gram Sabhas have been consulted.

Legal oversight has been extensive. A High-Powered Committee, set up under NGT orders, reviewed the clearances and found them to be in line with all statutory norms. This indicates that due process, at least on paper, has been followed.

Addressing Seismic & Ecological Risks

Great Nicobar lies in a seismically active zone. This raises valid worries. But the project incorporates layers of precaution in its design. Building standards are adjusted for seismic sensitivity, and disaster-resilient infrastructure has been factored into planning.

Equally important are the conservation zones earmarked for species unique to the island: leatherback turtles, Nicobar macaques, shrews, and more. These provisions aim to protect biodiversity alongside economic expansion.

On Sonia Gandhi’s Concerns

Sonia Gandhi has called the project a “grave misadventure”, pointing to tribal and ecological dangers. Her words underline genuine risks. But what her criticism leaves out are the detailed environmental safeguards, statutory compliance, and tribal consultation that are also part of the plan.

The project is not being built recklessly. Instead, it is presented as responsible nation-building. 🇮🇳

A Strategic Necessity

The Great Nicobar Project is more than an economic initiative. It is a strategic must-have for India’s regional stability and long-term self-reliance.

The infrastructure will bring growth, create thousands of jobs, and secure India’s maritime future. And, according to official assurances, all of this is being done while respecting tribal rights and protecting biodiversity.

Balanced development, the government argues, is not sacrilege—it’s necessity.