Introduction: The Relocation Plan and Its Context

In 2023, the Government of India proposed relocating the indigenous tribal communities of Great Nicobar Island, primarily the Shompen and Nicobarese, to facilitate the Great Nicobar Development Plan. This plan involves infrastructure projects including a mega port, airport, and urban settlements with investments exceeding ₹75,000 crore (approx. USD 10 billion) (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2023). The island hosts approximately 2,500 tribal inhabitants (Census 2011) and over 90% tropical evergreen forest cover (Forest Survey of India, 2021). The relocation has triggered concerns regarding indigenous rights, environmental sustainability, and socio-economic displacement.

Constitutional and Legal Framework Governing Tribal Areas in Great Nicobar

Great Nicobar Island falls under Schedule V of the Indian Constitution, with Article 244(2) empowering special governance arrangements for tribal areas in Union Territories. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 mandates safeguarding tribal habitats and restricting external interference. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) Sections 3 and 4 recognize individual and community forest rights, including habitat rights, which cover 40% of tribal land in the region (MoTA Annual Report, 2022). Environmental laws such as the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (Sections 18 and 35) regulate ecological conservation in the island’s biodiversity hotspots.

• Supreme Court rulings: In Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997), the Court emphasized tribal rights over land and resources, restricting alienation without consent.
• Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA): Provides for tribal self-governance and decision-making in Scheduled Areas, applicable to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Economic Implications of the Great Nicobar Development Plan

The Great Nicobar Development Plan aims to boost regional connectivity and trade under India’s Act East Policy, with the mega port projected to handle 50 million TEUs annually by 2030 (Indian Ports Association). However, over 70% of tribal income derives from traditional livelihoods such as fishing and forest produce (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2022), which face disruption due to relocation. Biodiversity loss threatens eco-tourism revenue, growing at a 12% CAGR in the region (IBEF, 2023). Environmental compliance under the EIA Notification, 2020 may increase project costs by 15-20%, yet rehabilitation and compensation packages lack transparency.

• Projected investment: ₹75,000 crore (~USD 10 billion)
• Traditional livelihoods at risk: Fishing, forest produce (>70% tribal income)
• Eco-tourism impact: Potential decline due to habitat loss
• Environmental compliance costs: Estimated 15-20% increase
• Port capacity: Expected 50 million TEUs by 2030

Environmental and Biodiversity Concerns

Great Nicobar Island’s ecosystem includes tropical evergreen forests covering over 90% of its area (Forest Survey of India, 2021). EIA reports (MoEFCC, 2023) indicate potential habitat loss for at least 15 endangered and endemic species. The island’s biodiversity is regulated under the Wildlife Protection Act and Environment Protection Act, with the National Biodiversity Authority overseeing biological resource access. Displacement risks ecological imbalance and threatens tribal community dependence on forest resources recognized under FRA 2006.

Governance and Institutional Roles

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) administers the Union Territory and tribal welfare, while the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) oversees tribal rights and development. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands Administration implements policies locally. Environmental clearances are under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), with the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) regulating biological resource access. The Tribal Advisory Council (TAC) is mandated to represent tribal interests in policy decisions but lacks binding authority.

Comparative Analysis: Australia’s Aboriginal Relocation Policy

Australia’s Northern Territory infrastructure expansions involved comprehensive Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, 1976. Negotiated settlements included compensation exceeding AUD 150 million, minimizing social unrest and preserving cultural heritage (Australian Government Department of Indigenous Affairs, 2022). This contrasts with India’s Great Nicobar plan, which lacks a legally binding FPIC framework, risking violations of tribal autonomy.

Critical Gaps and Legal Challenges

The Great Nicobar relocation plan lacks a binding Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) mechanism, a core principle in international norms such as ILO Convention 169 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). India has not ratified ILO 169 but is a UNDRIP signatory, creating legal ambiguity. Absence of robust grievance redressal mechanisms and transparent rehabilitation frameworks exacerbates risks to tribal autonomy and rights under FRA 2006 and Schedule V protections.

Way Forward: Aligning Development with Rights and Sustainability

• Institutionalize a binding FPIC process involving independent tribal representatives and the Tribal Advisory Council.
• Ensure transparent, adequate compensation and rehabilitation packages aligned with FRA 2006 and Supreme Court precedents.
• Conduct comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments with public disclosure and mitigation plans for endangered species and habitats.
• Strengthen inter-ministerial coordination among MHA, MoTA, MoEFCC, and local administration for integrated policy implementation.
• Adopt lessons from international best practices, such as Australia’s negotiated settlements, to minimize socio-cultural disruptions.