India’s proposal to transform Great Nicobar Island via a mega infrastructure project—the “Holistic Development of the Island” initiative—symbolises a flashpoint in the environment-vs-development debate. The plans include an international container transshipment terminal, a greenfield airport, a new city, power plants, and township spread over 166 sq km. Proponents say it could sharpen India’s strategic posture near the Malacca Strait, boost maritime trade, fuel tourism, and generate jobs.

But serious costs loom. The island is a biodiversity hotspot with endangered species like the leatherback sea turtle, Nicobar megapode, and many endemic forest flora. About 8.5-10 lakh trees may be felled; mangrove belts and coral reefs are threatened. Indigenous communities such as the Shompen and Nicobarese—particularly vulnerable tribal groups—face displacement, loss of livelihoods, and cultural disruption. Geological risk is high: being in a seismically active zone with history of tsunamis, geological shocks could make heavy infrastructure especially vulnerable.

Legal and procedural issues deepen the controversy. Critics argue that the Forest Rights Act has been bypassed, tribal councils were inadequately consulted, and compensatory afforestation in faraway states (e.g., Haryana, MP) does little to replace lost ecological and cultural services. Critics also say the Environmental Impact Assessment downplays risks like coastal erosion, seismic shaking, and disaster vulnerability.

The Great Nicobar Project is not just about concrete and ports; it forces a larger question: how does India imagine its future—through fast infrastructure alone, or through development that honours ecology, rights, and risk?