From ATI to Great Nicobar : Development Should Not Leave People Behind

From ATI to Great Nicobar : Development Should Not Leave People Behind

By
Debkumar Bhadra

The NITI Aayog’s proposed Great Nicobar Island Project has once again brought the Andaman and Nicobar Islands into the national spotlight. As more voices join the debate, strong opinions are emerging from different quarters. Many, including the island’s settler population view the mega project comprising an international trans-shipment port, a township and a greenfield airport — as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands as well as for India’s strategic future. At the same time, there are opposing voices that fear irreversible ecological damage is in the offing in one of the most fragile island ecosystems. This article attempts to capture the predicament faced by islanders whose voices seems to be overshadowed by organised and well connected narratives dominating the discourse.

For a region that has historically struggled with isolation, limited connectivity and fewer avenues of development, the project comprising an international trans-shipment port, a township, a greenfield airport and allied infrastructure facilities is seen by many locals as a gateway to better connectivity, employment opportunity and economic growth. Interestingly, the strongest voices opposing the project are coming from mainland-based, well-connected individuals and groups who are able to leverage social media platforms to amplify their viewpoints and dominate the narrative. As a result, the voice of the indigenous and local islander’s is reduced to that of a mute spectator in the debate about their own future. 

But before reducing the discussion to a simple battle between development and environment, it is important to remember that the islands have gone through similar moments before. Decisions taken with good intentions have often left ordinary islanders carrying the burden for years afterwards.

The story of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands is full of such difficult transitions.

One of the biggest examples was the complete shut-down of all wood-based industries, leading to the disappearance of employment avenues associated with them.

For decades, industries like Andaman Timber Industries (ATI) at Bambooflat, Wimco at Haddo, Jayshree Timber Products (JTP) at Bakultala and Kitply at Long Island employed thousands of islanders and settlers across the islands. Entire local economies depended on these industries directly or indirectly. Workers, transporters, small shopkeepers and daily wage earners all relied on them for survival.

Then came the restrictions on felling naturally grown trees following the Supreme Court’s judgement in the T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India. No doubt the intention behind the judgment was to protect the islands ecologically sensitive environmental.

But while the forests received protection, the islanders dependent on these industries were rendered jobless at the stroke of the pen.

M/S ATI shut down in October 2000. The remaining wood-based industries also followed the same path. Thousands of workers and settlers suddenly lost their livelihoods. There was no attempt at retraining the workforce, neither was there any plan for the rehabilitation of the affected families.

Consequently many islanders spent years waiting for retirement benefits and the meagre compensation. Cases moved from one office to another, from administrative forums upto the highest court of the land. Yet for many families, relief either came too late or never came at all. Several workers did not survive long enough to receive what they were owed.

What hurt most was not just the loss of employment, but the feeling among islanders that they had been completely forgotten during a policy shift, in which they had no say.

A similar disconnect became visible in the aftermath of 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.

The tsunami permanently changed the geography of the islands. Vast tracts of agricultural land belonging to settlers and island farmers were permanently submerged due to land subsistence. Many families lost homes, farmland and livelihoods overnight. What followed was years of uncertainty and frustration.

Compensation paid to families whose land had been submerged was linked to surrendering their land to the government. Many felt this defeated the very purpose of relief. Islanders expected support to rebuild their lives after a natural disaster, not a compensation mechanism that forced them into difficult choices at a time when they were already vulnerable.

Some resisted. Others eventually accepted the offer because they lacked the resources or the strength to pursue the matter any further. But the feeling of injustice never truly went away.

Both these episodes revealed the same larger problem: the gap between policy intentions and the realities islanders experience on the ground.

That is why the present debate surrounding the Great Nicobar project needs to be viewed carefully and in a much larger context.

The world and regional geopolitical dynamics are changing rapidly. Recent tensions involving Iran and the resulting blockade of the Strait of Hormuz showed how vulnerable global supply chains have become. Within weeks, the effects of disruptions in a distant part of the world were felt across countries through rising shipping uncertainty, shortages in fuel supply, interrupted air connectivity and wider economic instability.

The lesson is clear. Nothing remains local anymore. Events unfolding thousands of kilometres away can directly affect economies, trade routes and national security interests elsewhere.

India cannot afford to ignore these realities.

The Andaman & Nicobar Islands occupy one of the most strategically important locations in the Indian Ocean Region. Positioned close to major international shipping routes, the islands give India enormous strategic leverage in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical surrounding.

This is why the Great Nicobar project, proposed under the vision of NITI Aayog, cannot be viewed only through the narrow lens of development versus environment. What was witnessed in West Asia could become a template for future geopolitical confrontations. If India fails to prepare itself for such realities, it risks exposing its own economic and strategic vulnerabilities in times of crisis.

Viewed from that perspective, the Great Nicobar project assumes significance beyond the islands themselves. It becomes part of a larger national strategic vision.

At the same time, strategic importance alone cannot justify overlooking environmental concerns or the concerns of islanders and settlers who have lived in these islands for generations. Great Nicobar itself has a history of government-supported settlement programmes through which settlers from mainland India were rehabilitated and encouraged to build lives in these remote islands under difficult circumstances.

Several groups have raised valid concerns about biodiversity loss and long-term ecological impact. These concerns deserve serious attention, not dismissal.

Similarly, the experiences of M/S ATI Ltd workers, tsunami-affected farmers, settlers and displaced islanders remind us that people often pay the price when policies are implemented without adequate safeguards.

The real challenge, therefore, is not choosing between development and environment. The real challenge is ensuring that development happens responsibly and humanely without making islanders feel excluded from decisions that directly affect their future.

If the Great Nicobar project moves forward, it must avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

Compensation mechanisms must be fair, transparent and legally enforceable. Rehabilitation cannot remain a vague promise. Islanders and settlers affected directly or indirectly should have access to long-term livelihood and economic rehabilitation. Environmental impact assessments must remain transparent and open to public scrutiny. Most importantly, local communities should be treated as stakeholders in the process, not as obstacles to it.

Development becomes sustainable only when it carries people along with it.

The Andaman & Nicobar Islands have already seen how decisions taken decades ago continue to affect ordinary islanders even today. Governments change, policies change and public attention shifts elsewhere, but the consequences remain with the people who live through these transitions.

The closure of the likes including M/S ATI Ltd and the struggles of tsunami-affected settlers should not remain forgotten chapters in the islands’ history. They are reminders that policy decisions cannot be judged only by intentions alone, but by how they shape people’s lives over time.

Development cannot come at the cost of people, just as environmental protection cannot ignore livelihoods.

The real challenge is not choosing one over the other, but ensuring that national interest, protection of environment and the dignity of islanders move forward together.

Related Reading:
👉 The Grand Betrayal
👉 The Inconvenient Truth
👉 In the fields of Stewart Gunj