India’s ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Project, cleared by the National Green Tribunal, faces intense scrutiny after a UN racial discrimination panel urged suspension until full environmental, social and economic studies are done. The plan promises strategic and trade gains in the Indo-Pacific, but critics warn of rainforest loss, seismic risks and threats to indigenous communities and fragile species.
THE GREAT NICOBAR PROJECT remains one of the most divisive development projects ever since the National Green Tribunal gave it approval in February 2026. The detractors call out the environmental concerns related to the project which the NGT missed out, while the government maintains that it will give the nation a strategic and economical edge in the Indo-Pacific region. The estimated ₹92,000 crore project has once again come under scrutiny after a United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) recommended that India suspend the proposed infrastructure projects on the island until detailed studies on their environmental, economic, and social impact are completed.
The UN committee has also raised concerns over the implementation of India's Forest Rights Act (FRA) and the protection of indigenous communities, including the Shompen and Nicobarese of Great Nicobar. However, the debate continues as the supporters of the project flag future security concerns as China expands its presence into the Indo-Pacific region. They also point the economical advantages of the project as an airport in Great Nicobar can reduce India’s dependence on foreign shipment ports and build better connectivity of the island to the world. But it is not that simple as it seems.
The Great Nicobar project is planned as a massive infrastructure development of Nicobar island in the union territory of Andaman & Nicobar. It includes an international transshipment container terminal, a greenfield airport, a power plant, a township, tourism-related infrastructure, and more.
According to The Wire, the project could involve the diversion of around 130 sq km (13,000 hectares) of rainforest, including areas inhabited by local tribes and indigenous species. This is the major area of concern for environmentalists.
In the July 6, 2026, edition of the Outlook magazine, Environmental conservationist Debi Goenka spoke on the project in an exclusive interview with Fozia Yasin. He said the loss of around 130 sq km of forest, along with Leatherback Turtle nesting grounds, coral reefs, mangroves, and habitats of endemic species such as the Nicobar Megapode, could pose “unimaginable risks” to the island's environment.
“The strategic importance of the proposed projects is imaginary and an afterthought,” he said, arguing that India's defence agencies can achieve their same goal by reinforcing existing defence capabilities of the island. Goenka added, “There is absolutely no need to spend ₹92,000 crore of public money building these unviable projects at huge and irreversible damage to our environment.”
He also questioned the proposed commercial port, arguing that existing ports in India and Sri Lanka can already handle the country's transshipment requirements. According to him, the island already has an airstrip that can be expanded as well as a port, and the commercial port would not necessarily strengthen India's defence capabilities. The conservationist further flagged the island's seismic vulnerability as another concern as it is an “extremely high-risk seismic zone.” He argued that construction costs could increase significantly.
Addressing the National Green Tribunal’s approval of the project, Goenka questioned if existing environmental procedures had been properly followed. He said, “The role of National Green Tribunal [NGT] has been particularly condemnable; they have completely failed to do their job. Environmental courts are meant to protect ecosystems, not weigh strategic considerations, and they will go down in history as abject failures.”
Goenka believes that there can be no middle ground between preserving the environment and the government's proposed project. Claiming that it is not just environmental but a financial loss for the nation, he demanded that the project be completely scrapped.
See Also: India's Most Polluted City Isn't Delhi—Here's Why Meghalaya's Byrnihat Is Choking on Toxic Air
In the same edition of the Outlook, former Lt. General of India, Ajai Singh, published a column titled, “Unwrapping an Asset,” which lists out the advantages of the Great Nicobar Development Project.
Singh writes that Great Nicobar sits close to the major east-west maritime shipping route connecting the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asia. He argued that a transshipment port does not need a large hinterland because its business depends mainly on shipping routes. He said Galathea Bay— located at the southeastern coast of the Great Nicobar Island— has a natural deep-water advantage, allowing large container ships to reach the proposed port.
Singh writes that India currently sends around 75% of its transshipment cargo to foreign ports, mainly Colombo, Singapore, and Port Klang. Singh argued that Great Nicobar could help India “reclaim this traffic and the revenue”.
The retired Lt. General also gave the argument for national safety. He said China's growing presence in Sri Lanka and Myanmar makes Great Nicobar strategically important for India. However, he also acknowledges that “the project does not convert the island into a military base.” He wrote, “It simply ensures that India finally uses its geography to secure its interests.”
Addressing the environmental concerns, Singh believes the figures are taken out of context. He pointed out that Great Nicobar is around 85% forested area, with about 773 sq km (77,300 hectares) of forest. The proposed diversion of 13,075 hectares would amount to around 17% of the island's forest cover. Almost one-fifth of the island’s greenery is indeed a troubling figure. However, the former Lt. General claims it is still less than 2% of the total forest cover across the Andaman and Nicobar islands. “Over 98 per cent of the archipelago's forests will thus remain untouched,” he wrote.
On the species of Leatherback Turtles, Singh acknowledged that Galathea Bay is a nesting site but said the port is outside the core nesting areas that will not disturb the biodiversity of the region as all measures have been taken into consideration. He further cited ports operating near turtle nesting beaches in countries including Costa Rica, Australia, and Malaysia.
The larger debate over the environment vs development will linger on even when the project’s future is uncertain. Can India balance its strategic and economic ambitions with the ecological and tribal rights concerns surrounding Great Nicobar? Moreover, will the government even bother to answer the UN’s and critics’ concern or will it march on with the thousand crore development project?
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store