The Congress party has significantly criticized Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s remarks regarding the ongoing Great Nicobar Mega Infrastructure Project. Party leaders accused the government of disregarding indigenous rights and ecological concerns while rushing to approve the ambitious plan. The backlash comes amid widespread apprehensions over the project’s implications for local tribes and biodiversity.
Prominent figures including historian Ramachandra Guha and wildlife biologist Ravi Chellam joined the chorus of dissent, emphasizing that government regulations like the ANPAT Regulation (1956) and the Shompen Policy (2015) have been overlooked. They demand the authorities reconsider the project’s potential damage to indigenous communities and the ecological integrity of the region.
In an open letter, the signatories asserted that the Environmental Appraisal Committee failed to address significant anthropological and ecological objections from local communities. They highlighted that while the Galathea Wildlife Sanctuary was denotified, three new sanctuaries were established without any consultation with the Great and Little Nicobar islanders.
The criticism focused on the project as a “hollow exercise” aimed at satisfying environmental clearance conditions. It raises questions about the sincerity of the government’s commitments to sustainability and biodiversity, as expressed by those opposing the initiative.
This letter urged Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav to prioritize ecological considerations over political interests and address the irreversible negative implications of the proposed infrastructure.
Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the Congress Parliamentary Party, expressed her apprehensions in an article published in “The Hindu”. She termed the Great Nicobar Mega Infra Project a “planned misadventure,” warning that it threatens the survival of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes. She also stated that the project risks destroying one of the world’s most unique ecosystems and is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters.
Gandhi accused the government of undermining legal processes and making a mockery of deliberation regarding such an impact-laden project. Her comments echo growing concerns among various stakeholders regarding the project’s environmental and social ramifications.
In defense, Minister Yadav penned a counter-column in the same publication, asserting the project’s significance for national strategy and defense. He lauded it as a vital initiative that will promote development in the region, although it generated more skepticism among experts and local advocates.
This ongoing conflict highlights the tension between development ambitions and environmental stewardship—a pressing issue in many parts of India. As more individuals demand accountability, the future of the Great Nicobar Mega Infra Project may depend on a careful reevaluation of its potential impacts on communities and ecosystems.
