In June, just over a month after the inauguration of Kerala's Vizhinjam International Seaport, the facility achieved a significant milestone by welcoming the MSC Irina, among the world’s largest and most fuel-efficient container ships. This proved Vizhinjam’s operational viability as a deep-water transhipment hub, one of the main purposes for which the controversial Great Nicobar project has been proposed. With Vizhinjam now functioning as India's first deep-water transhipment port, the Rs 72,000 crore Great Nicobar initiative appears increasingly redundant, especially considering its environmental and social challenges.
The debate on Kerala versus Nicobar has become more complex following two maritime accidents off Kerala’s coast. These incidents caused significant environmental damage and revealed gaps in safety oversight and regulatory enforcement at Vizhinjam. These lapses showed how even lower-risk projects can cause serious harm and disrupt coastal fisherfolk’s livelihoods, raising doubts about the consequences of a large-scale project in the far more fragile ecosystem of Great Nicobar.
The Great Nicobar project is being promoted as India’s gateway to becoming a global shipping hub. In March 2025, the Union tribal affairs minister, Jual Oram, said that local objections had not been received, a claim refuted by Barnabas Manju, the chairman of the Little and Great Nicobar Tribal Council, who confirmed formal objections had been submitted in 2022 but were ignored. The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes voiced concerns over the project’s impact on indigenous peoples, questioning its ethical and economic viability. The island’s delicate ecosystem, the presence of indigenous communities, and legal restrictions pose major hurdles. Nicobar’s indigenous governance adds to the complexity. Tribal councils under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Tribal Councils) Regulation, 2009 oversee local welfare. In November 2022, the Little and Great Nicobar Tribal Council had revoked the NOC granted three months earlier for forest diversion, raising questions about possible violations of the Forest Rights Act (2006) and the Shompen Protection Policy (2015), which mandates prioritising their welfare and consulting them before large projects.
The environmental cost of the Great Nicobar Project is staggering. Government estimates place tree felling at approximately 8.5 lakh, possibly rising to 9.64 lakh. Independent analyses suggest the loss could reach between 32 and 58 lakh, with some estimates nearing one crore, depending on forest density. The project threatens endangered species, including saltwater crocodiles, Nicobar megapode birds, and leatherback turtles, apart from the Nicobarese tribe and the Shompen. The port site lies within the Coastal Regulation Zone 1A where construction is banned. Yet, a National Green Tribunal High Powered Committee ruled that the port falls outside the Island Coastal Regulation Zone-IA, which prohibits ports. In contrast, Vizhinjam’s development caused less ecological disruption and no indigenous displacement.
Aspiring to make Nicobar the 'Singapore of India' ignores key realities. Singapore's success stemmed from strategic location, a dense population, and urban infrastructure, conditions absent in Nicobar given its sparse population and fragile ecology.
With climate urgency rising, prioritising sustainable development over ecological destruction is both an environmental and practical necessity. Vizhinjam’s emergence as a viable transhipment port offers an existing alternative to Nicobar. India must pursue maritime infrastructure that safeguards heritage and honours indigenous rights.
Utkarsh Yadav is a student at Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow