ramesh-slams-minister-over-nicobar-project-questions

The contentious Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project has sparked a heated exchange between the Indian National Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), with Congress leader Jairam Ramesh sharply criticising Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav for dismissing the opposition’s concerns as "negative politics". 

On Sunday, Ramesh emphasised that highlighting the potential "ecological and humanitarian disaster" posed by the project is not political posturing but a legitimate expression of grave concern.

"The Union Minister of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, Bhupender Yadav, has accused the Indian National Congress of doing what he calls 'negative politics' on the Great Nicobar mega infrastructure project. Drawing the nation's attention to an imminent ecological and humanitarian disaster is NOT 'negative politics'. It is an expression of grave concern," Ramesh stated on X.

 

https://twitter.com/Jairam_Ramesh/status/1969624959359336504

 

Ramesh accused the minister of failing to address critical questions raised by the Congress regarding the project’s environmental and social impacts. He questioned whether the project, which involves diverting lakhs of trees, violates the National Forest Policy of 1988, which mandates that "tropical rain/moist forests, particularly in areas of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, should be totally safeguarded." 

He further criticised the proposed compensatory afforestation, calling it inadequate. "Compensatory afforestation is always a poor substitute for old-growth forests, but the afforestation planned in this project is farcical. How can afforestation in distant Haryana, with a completely different ecosystem, be considered a genuine offset for the loss of old-growth rainforest unique to Great Nicobar? Why has the government of Haryana already freed up 25 pc of this land for mining instead of reserving it for the afforestation?" Ramesh asked.

The Congress leader also raised concerns about the lack of consultation with the National Commission on Scheduled Tribes before the project’s approval. He questioned why the concerns of the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar were being ignored and why the Shompen Policy, which prioritises the community’s integrity, was disregarded. 

"Why are the concerns of the Tribal Council of Great Nicobar regarding this project being ignored? Why is the Shompen Policy of the Islands, which explicitly calls for the integrity of the community to be prioritised in all projects, being disregarded?" he said.

Ramesh further highlighted deficiencies in the project’s compliance with legal frameworks, pointing out that the Social Impact Assessment, conducted under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR), fails to acknowledge the existence of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes. 

He also noted that the Forest Rights Act of 2006 designates the Shompen as the sole authority to protect and manage their tribal reserve, yet the project’s approval process does not recognise this. "The Forest Rights Act (2006) holds the Shompen as the sole legally empowered authority to protect, preserve, regulate, and manage the tribal reserve. Why does the project's approval process fail to recognise the same?" Ramesh asked.

The ecological stakes are high, as Great Nicobar is home to endangered species such as leatherback turtles, megapodes, saltwater crocodiles, and rich coral systems. Ramesh questioned whether the project would push these species closer to extinction. He also demanded transparency, asking, "Why are critical documents relating to this project, including the reports of the ground-truthing exercise conducted to reclassify the location of the planned transshipment port from CRZ1-A, not being published in the open?"

Given the island’s history of severe subsidence during the 2004 tsunami and its location in a high-seismic zone, Ramesh raised concerns about the project’s sustainability. "Given the island's history of severe subsidence during the 2004 tsunami and its location in a high-seismic zone, can the sustainability of this project be assured?" he asked.

 

Also Read: Great Nicobar tribal reserve to be cleared for road project

In a pointed remark, Ramesh referenced a book co-authored by Bhupender Yadav two decades ago, titled Supreme Court on Forest Conservation, alongside environmentalist Ritwick Dutta. He noted the irony of Yadav’s current stance, given Dutta’s environmental activism has led to scrutiny from investigative agencies, while Yadav has risen to a prominent position.

 

"Over twenty years ago, a valuable book was published. It was called 'Supreme Court on Forest Conservation' and it was authored by Ritwick Dutta and Bhupender Yadav. Sadly the first author has had investigative agencies unleashed against him for his environmental activism - but happily the second author has had a much better fate. When will that Bhupender Yadav awake?" Ramesh remarked.

 

Also Read: Lt Gen Rana is Andaman & Nicobar Command's new Commander-in-Chief

 

The controversy was reignited after Yadav, speaking at an event organised by The Public Affairs Forum of India on Thursday, accused the Congress of spreading confusion and indulging in "negative politics" by opposing the Great Nicobar project. He defended the Rs 72,000 crore initiative, emphasizing its importance for national security and strategic connectivity in the Indian Ocean Region. Yadav claimed that only 1.78 per cent of Great Nicobar’s forest area would be utilized for the project, which includes an international container transshipment terminal, a greenfield international airport, a 450 MVA gas- and solar-based power plant, and a township spanning 16 sq km.

 

The Congress’s opposition was further amplified by Congress Parliamentary Party chairperson Sonia Gandhi, who, in an article published in daily newspapers, described the project as a "planned misadventure" that threatens the survival of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes, endangers one of the world’s most unique ecosystems, and is highly vulnerable to natural disasters.

 

Also Read: Rahul Gandhi calls Great Nicobar Island Project a misadventure

"The ancestral villages of the Nicobarese tribals fall in the project's proposed land area. The Nicobarese were forced to evacuate their villages during the 2004 tsunami. This project will now permanently displace this community, ending its dream of returning to its ancestral villages," Gandhi wrote. She also warned that the Shompen face an even greater threat, as the project denotifies a significant part of their reserve and will introduce a large influx of people and tourists to the island. Gandhi further alleged that the project was being pushed through by "making a mockery of all legal and deliberative processes."

In response, Yadav authored a column in The Hindu, defending the project as critical for strategic, defence, and national interests, positioning Great Nicobar as a major hub for maritime and air connectivity in the Indian Ocean Region.

As the debate intensifies, the Great Nicobar infrastructure project remains a flashpoint, with the Congress highlighting ecological and humanitarian concerns and the BJP emphasising its strategic importance. The clash underscores the broader tension between development goals and environmental conservation in India’s fragile island ecosystems.

 

Also Read: Jairam flags tribal, scientific concerns on Nicobar project