Great Nicobar Dispute: Ramesh Accuses Government of Masking Real Estate Plan as Strategic

Budget Allocation Fuels Strategic Skepticism

The controversy surrounding the Great Nicobar Island Project intensified as Congress MP Jairam Ramesh sent a sharp rebuttal to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on July 25. Ramesh contends that the project's primary driver is commercial ambition rather than national security. Analysis of the budget reveals that the trans-shipment port at Galathea Bay commands half of the total expenditure. In contrast, the dual-purpose airport—the sole element with a specific defense utility—accounts for only 10% of the budget and occupies less than 5% of the 166 square kilometers earmarked for development.

Ramesh characterized the 2047 Draft Master Plan as a blueprint for a real estate venture. He noted that the inclusion of casinos, cruise tourism hubs, and theme parks suggests a profit-driven motive. According to Ramesh, the government is "inventing" a strategic rationale to justify an ecological and social disruption that he believes could be avoided by expanding existing facilities.

Disputed Military Utility and Environmental Costs

Defense Minister Rajnath Singh’s July 17 correspondence argued that the project is indispensable for maritime domain awareness, citing its location near critical Sea Lanes of Communication. Singh asserted that existing installations like INS Kohassa or Car Nicobar lack the necessary proximity to these routes. However, Ramesh urged the Minister to consult retired naval experts who remain skeptical of these claims. Several specific risks highlighted by Ramesh remain unaddressed, including:

• The destruction of ancient Shompen tribal territories.
• Interruption of international migratory bird flyways.
• The leveling of two forest-covered hills.
• Transparency concerns regarding the confidential High-Powered Committee report from the National Green Tribunal.

The Brownfield vs. Greenfield Debate

A central point of contention involves INS Baaz at Campbell Bay. Ramesh argues that upgrading this existing site would incur significantly lower social and environmental costs than building a new greenfield airport. The government, however, maintains that expanding INS Baaz was ruled out during the environmental impact assessment. Singh claimed that a brownfield expansion would necessitate massive land reclamation and would disturb the local flora and fauna more severely than the current plan. The Minister insisted that all statutory approvals are backed by stringent safeguards and that the National Green Tribunal found no reason to halt the proceedings.

Source: The Hindu — News