No to Doctrinaire Environmentalism

AFTER PROTRACTED litigation spanning over a number of years the National Green Tribunal (NGT) gave the green light to the Great Nicobar Island Development Project on February 16, 2026. The project comprises an international container trans-shipment terminal, a town­ship, a gas and solar power generation plant and assorted development programmes on the Great Nicobar Island, the southernmost tip of India and just 40 miles (about 64 km) north of international shipping lanes close to the Malacca Strait.

The location of the project and its strategic nature made it very important from a de­fence perspective. But that did not deter the litigant in the case, a well-known environ­mentalist, from demanding a halt to the project. In earlier rounds of litigation, NGT allowed the widest ampli­tude for these concerns. A High-Powered Committee (HPC) was formed on the orders of the tribunal in an earlier round of litigation in April 2023. That committee reported back to the tribunal in October 2024. Given the strategic issues involved in the project, the HPC report was not made public—as the environmentalist had de­manded—but in its order last week, the tribunal found that all environmental aspects of the projects were in order.

These issues were ad­dressed in the environmental clearance granted back in November 2022. Most importantly, this clearance itself has mandated that no construction activity will be carried out in the Coastal Regulation Zone or CRZ. The Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) rules mandate a graded approach to activity in ecologically sensitive zones. The Great Nicobar Island Project, which falls in class IA of ICRZ regulations, that regulate the most sensitive ecological zones such as coral reefs, mangroves, sand dunes, turtle hatching areas etc.

To its credit, the tribunal did not dismiss these concerns off hand. It brought in experts from the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI) and other wildlife specialists, along with admin­istrators, to take a careful look at the project. After more than half a decade since the project was conceived, it was given a go ahead. In its order, the tribunal said that a balance between environmental and defence/strategic concerns had to be arrived at.

Through this order, NGT has put a stop to weaponi­sation of environmental concerns against projects of national importance. The Great Nicobar Island Project is only one among dozens of projects that environmental­ists and activists have tried to scuttle in the past decade. This is a sinister trend that is now being recognised, even if belatedly. There is every likeli­hood that the NGT verdict will now be challenged in the Supreme Court.

There is a good reason to be concerned about environmental stresses in India against the backdrop of climate change. But the politics behind environmen­talism in India also requires a careful and hard look. The Great Nicobar Island Project is only one among many cases where attempts have been made to derail growth. In this case, attempts were made to claim that indigenous people of Great Nicobar—the Shompen and the Nicobarese people—were not given a hearing. Similar arguments have been used against mining projects in multiple locations in the country. In some cases, this “environ­mentalism” has led to serious internal security problems that have taken decades to re­solve. A dam here, an adivasi habitation there, somewhere a saltwater crocodile and some mangrove elsewhere: India is hostage to multiple veto points. No wonder at­tempts to speed up growth and development get caught in manmade bottlenecks.

In any real-life policy situation, there are multiple trade-offs involved. Most times, these trade-offs have “winners and losers.” More than a century of economic theorising and practical expe­rience have shown how these trade-offs can be managed. But India’s alleged environ­mentalists are absolutists. They are the single biggest roadblock against sane envi­ronmentalism.