UN Watchdog Questions Great Nicobar Project, India Hits Back

New Delhi | August 27, 2026

A fresh confrontation has emerged between India and a United Nations human-rights watchdog over the proposed development of Great Nicobar Island, with the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) calling for suspension of the projects pending independent assessments, while the Government of India has rejected the committee's observations as “politically motivated” and “highly malicious.”

The development has brought the long-running debate over the Great Nicobar infrastructure project back into the national spotlight, placing Indigenous rights, environmental concerns and India's development priorities at the centre of the discussion.

In its concluding observations on India, CERD expressed concern over the potential impact of major infrastructure and development projects on Indigenous and tribal communities. With regard to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the committee recommended that India suspend implementation of the projects until comprehensive and independent assessments of their environmental, economic, social, cultural and spiritual impacts have been carried out.

The recommendation is particularly significant because the proposed Great Nicobar project is not a single infrastructure facility.

The approximately ₹92,000-crore project envisages a transshipment port, an international airport, a power plant and a new township, along with associated infrastructure and tourism-related development.

The project has been presented by the government as a strategically important initiative that could strengthen India's position in the Indian Ocean, develop maritime infrastructure and generate economic opportunities in the Islands.

However, environmentalists, researchers and sections of civil society have raised questions about the project's potential consequences for Great Nicobar's exceptionally rich ecosystems and Indigenous communities, including the Shompen and Nicobarese.

CERD's intervention adds an international human-rights dimension to those concerns. Its recommendation goes beyond asking whether the project is environmentally sustainable. It calls for consideration of the project's possible effects on the social, cultural and spiritual life of Indigenous communities.

India Rejects the Criticism

India has strongly pushed back against the UN committee's observations.

Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India's delegation had rejected what it considered sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated allegations during the review process. The government also questioned the basis and approach behind several of the committee's observations.

India has reiterated that its commitment to combating racial discrimination remains unwavering and that the country possesses established constitutional, legal and institutional mechanisms for protecting vulnerable communities.

The government's response is significant because CERD's concluding observations are recommendations rather than legally binding orders. The committee does not have the authority to unilaterally halt an Indian infrastructure project.

Nevertheless, the recommendations have considerable international significance because they place the Great Nicobar project under renewed scrutiny from the perspective of Indigenous rights and international human-rights standards.

Development Versus Protection

The controversy ultimately raises a difficult question:

How should India balance strategic development with the protection of an extraordinarily fragile ecological and Indigenous landscape?

Great Nicobar is unlike a conventional mainland development site.

Its geographical isolation, biodiversity and Indigenous populations make large-scale transformation particularly sensitive.

For supporters of the project, delaying major infrastructure could undermine India's strategic and economic objectives in the region.

For critics, however, strategic importance cannot become a reason to dilute environmental safeguards or overlook the rights and interests of Indigenous communities.

The latest UN intervention therefore does not settle the debate.

Instead, it raises the threshold for answering it.

India now faces the challenge of demonstrating that the proposed transformation of Great Nicobar can meet the country's strategic objectives without compromising ecological integrity, Indigenous rights and the long-term interests of the Islands.

The government has rejected the UN committee's characterisation of the situation. The committee, meanwhile, has called for deeper and independent scrutiny before the projects proceed.

For the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the issue is no longer only about a port, an airport or a township.

It is about what kind of development the Islands are prepared to accept and what safeguards must accompany it.

Dweep Tulika | A Truthful & Unbiased Perspective