Great Nicobar Project: Minister Jual Oram Denies Receiving Tribal Objections
While the government defends the highly contentious project on strategic and economic grounds, experts highlight concerns over governmental transparency, displacement of tribes, and environmental sustainability.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images
During a Rajya Sabha debate on March 12, Union Minister of Tribal Affairs Jual Oram denied receiving objections from the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar or activists regarding the controversial Great Nicobar development project. He informed the House that the project—which includes a transhipment port, an airport, a gas power plant, and tourism infrastructure—had Gram Sabha approval and was in the national interest. Responding to All India Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale, Oram claimed only 7.14 square kilometres of tribal reserve land would be used, adding that “not even one person is being displaced”.
The Centre had asserted that “no tribal will be displaced, and there will be no environmental impact” from the project, which faces opposition from tribal leaders, anthropologists, and environmental activists. Critics say the Rs 81,834 crore initiative endangers indigenous communities and the region’s fragile ecosystem, while the government defends it on strategic and economic grounds.
Gokhale challenged these claims, pointing out that the Tribal Council withdrew its No Objection Certificate (NOC) on November 22, 2022. The Council objected to denotifying 84.1 sq km of tribal reserve land and diverting 130.75 sq km of forest, alleging that crucial details were withheld from tribal communities. Gokhale questioned whether the Ministry responded to the council’s concerns.
Also Read | The Great Nicobar Project: A costly miscalculation?
Gokhale pointed out a video report by anthropologist Dr Vishvajit Pandya, which documented tribal opposition. The report was submitted to a high-powered committee investigating the issue of post-National Green Tribunal (NGT) decisions. Oram, however, denied receiving any such report. Although Pandya had submitted his findings—including interviews with the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes—to the island administration, the administration did not officially record them.
The Great Nicobar project, part of NITI Aayog’s Rs 72,000 crore “holistic development plan”, faces criticism over its risky location. Great Nicobar Island lies within the seismically active “Ring of Fire” and was severely hit by the 2004 tsunami. Critics argue that building major infrastructure in such an unstable area is inherently risky.
Moreover, Great Nicobar’s dense tropical forests—home to diverse flora and fauna—could face destruction. The project occupies 100 sq km, substantially changing the island’s pristine landscape. The Shompen and Nicobarese tribes, recognised as particularly vulnerable tribal groups, possess ancestral land rights, but their voices have largely been ignored. Highlighting this concern, Gokhale criticised the Ministry’s response, stating that citing sub judice was an excuse to avoid transparency. He stressed the tribes’ historical isolation, their dependency on local ecosystems, and unresolved displacement worries following the 2004 tsunami.
Amid allegations of forced land acquisition and ecological harm, Union Minister Jual Oram denies receiving objections to the Great Nicobar project.
| Photo Credit:
ANI
The proposed project envisions increasing the island’s population from about 7,000 to 8,000 to 3,00,000 by 2050—a 3,000 per cent increase that could overwhelm the ecosystem and indigenous communities. Gokhale pressed Oram on the tribal council’s reported opposition to denotifying five villages—including Chingneh, Kokeon, and Haeng Loi—for the project. Oram dismissed these claims, asserting the government had received no public objections.
Defending the project’s strategic importance, Oram connected it to India’s maritime security, comparing it to Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, which China operates on a 99-year lease. He described Great Nicobar as crucial for India’s maritime security and regional influence.
However, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of evading parliamentary scrutiny by claiming sub judice status. He referred to the July 21, 2023, ruling stating Parliament’s right to discuss all matters excluding judicial conduct. Calling the project “a recipe for an environmental and humanitarian disaster”, Ramesh urged transparency.
Clearances without through vetting
As a Frontline report (January 12, 2023) revealed, the approval process lacked transparency. The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) rapidly granted environmental clearances over two years. In early 2021, the National Board for Wildlife denotified the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary—a critical marine turtle nesting site—and declared a zero-extent eco-sensitive zone for Galathea and Campbell Bay National Parks, allowing development of pristine forests.
Also Read | Great Nicobar: Disaster in the making
Further investigation revealed that Vimta Labs began environmental assessment data collection months before being officially contracted, suggesting predetermined outcomes. Requests for critical documents under RTI were denied, contradicting Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav’s claims of transparency.
BJP MP Kalpana Saini also defended the project calling it essential for India’s maritime trade ambitions. In contrast, Fauzia Khan of the Nationalist Congress Party expressed concern over inadequate assessments of the project’s impact on the isolated Shompen tribe. Oram dismissed her query as beyond the debate’s scope, reiterating the government’s stance that no harm would come to tribal communities.
Frontline’s extensive coverage has brought out pressing, immediate and crucial concerns regarding environmental risks and humanitarian implications. Beyond social and ecological sustainability, the project’s economic viability remains uncertain due to high construction costs, competition from established ports like Colombo and Singapore, and unclear revenue projections.
While the government defends the highly contentious project on strategic and economic grounds, experts highlight concerns over governmental transparency, displacement of tribes, and environmental sustainability.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images
During a Rajya Sabha debate on March 12, Union Minister of Tribal Affairs Jual Oram denied receiving objections from the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar or activists regarding the controversial Great Nicobar development project. He informed the House that the project—which includes a transhipment port, an airport, a gas power plant, and tourism infrastructure—had Gram Sabha approval and was in the national interest. Responding to All India Trinamool Congress MP Saket Gokhale, Oram claimed only 7.14 square kilometres of tribal reserve land would be used, adding that “not even one person is being displaced”.
The Centre had asserted that “no tribal will be displaced, and there will be no environmental impact” from the project, which faces opposition from tribal leaders, anthropologists, and environmental activists. Critics say the Rs 81,834 crore initiative endangers indigenous communities and the region’s fragile ecosystem, while the government defends it on strategic and economic grounds.
Gokhale challenged these claims, pointing out that the Tribal Council withdrew its No Objection Certificate (NOC) on November 22, 2022. The Council objected to denotifying 84.1 sq km of tribal reserve land and diverting 130.75 sq km of forest, alleging that crucial details were withheld from tribal communities. Gokhale questioned whether the Ministry responded to the council’s concerns.
Also Read | The Great Nicobar Project: A costly miscalculation?
Gokhale pointed out a video report by anthropologist Dr Vishvajit Pandya, which documented tribal opposition. The report was submitted to a high-powered committee investigating the issue of post-National Green Tribunal (NGT) decisions. Oram, however, denied receiving any such report. Although Pandya had submitted his findings—including interviews with the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes—to the island administration, the administration did not officially record them.
The Great Nicobar project, part of NITI Aayog’s Rs 72,000 crore “holistic development plan”, faces criticism over its risky location. Great Nicobar Island lies within the seismically active “Ring of Fire” and was severely hit by the 2004 tsunami. Critics argue that building major infrastructure in such an unstable area is inherently risky.
Moreover, Great Nicobar’s dense tropical forests—home to diverse flora and fauna—could face destruction. The project occupies 100 sq km, substantially changing the island’s pristine landscape. The Shompen and Nicobarese tribes, recognised as particularly vulnerable tribal groups, possess ancestral land rights, but their voices have largely been ignored. Highlighting this concern, Gokhale criticised the Ministry’s response, stating that citing sub judice was an excuse to avoid transparency. He stressed the tribes’ historical isolation, their dependency on local ecosystems, and unresolved displacement worries following the 2004 tsunami.
Amid allegations of forced land acquisition and ecological harm, Union Minister Jual Oram denies receiving objections to the Great Nicobar project.
| Photo Credit:
ANI
The proposed project envisions increasing the island’s population from about 7,000 to 8,000 to 3,00,000 by 2050—a 3,000 per cent increase that could overwhelm the ecosystem and indigenous communities. Gokhale pressed Oram on the tribal council’s reported opposition to denotifying five villages—including Chingneh, Kokeon, and Haeng Loi—for the project. Oram dismissed these claims, asserting the government had received no public objections.
Defending the project’s strategic importance, Oram connected it to India’s maritime security, comparing it to Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, which China operates on a 99-year lease. He described Great Nicobar as crucial for India’s maritime security and regional influence.
However, Congress MP Jairam Ramesh accused the government of evading parliamentary scrutiny by claiming sub judice status. He referred to the July 21, 2023, ruling stating Parliament’s right to discuss all matters excluding judicial conduct. Calling the project “a recipe for an environmental and humanitarian disaster”, Ramesh urged transparency.
Clearances without through vetting
As a Frontline report (January 12, 2023) revealed, the approval process lacked transparency. The Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC) rapidly granted environmental clearances over two years. In early 2021, the National Board for Wildlife denotified the Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary—a critical marine turtle nesting site—and declared a zero-extent eco-sensitive zone for Galathea and Campbell Bay National Parks, allowing development of pristine forests.
Also Read | Great Nicobar: Disaster in the making
Further investigation revealed that Vimta Labs began environmental assessment data collection months before being officially contracted, suggesting predetermined outcomes. Requests for critical documents under RTI were denied, contradicting Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav’s claims of transparency.
BJP MP Kalpana Saini also defended the project calling it essential for India’s maritime trade ambitions. In contrast, Fauzia Khan of the Nationalist Congress Party expressed concern over inadequate assessments of the project’s impact on the isolated Shompen tribe. Oram dismissed her query as beyond the debate’s scope, reiterating the government’s stance that no harm would come to tribal communities.
Frontline’s extensive coverage has brought out pressing, immediate and crucial concerns regarding environmental risks and humanitarian implications. Beyond social and ecological sustainability, the project’s economic viability remains uncertain due to high construction costs, competition from established ports like Colombo and Singapore, and unclear revenue projections.
